UDL Guidelines Version 2.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Guidelines

Version 2.2

January 25, 2018

This is an archived version of UDL Guidelines Version 2.2 which appeared on the UDL Guidelines
website from January 2018 to July 2024. The UDL Guidelines are meant to be dynamic and
continuously developed based on research and feedback from practitioners. In 2020, we
embarked on a journey to expand UDL Guidelines 2.2 to address barriers rooted in biases and
systems of exclusion. That next iteration, Version 3.0, was launched on July 30, 2024.

Suggested Citation: CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved
from [Link]

1
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
What are the UDL Guidelines? ...................................................................................................................................... 4
About the Graphic Organizer ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Organization .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Applying to Practice ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Provide multiple means of Engagement .................................................................................................................... 5
Provide options for Recruiting Interest ................................................................................................................ 5
Optimize individual choice and autonomy ...................................................................................................... 6
Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity .................................................................................................. 6
Minimize threats and distractions ...................................................................................................................... 7
Provide options for Sustaining Effort & Persistence ....................................................................................... 7
Heighten salience of goals and objectives ....................................................................................................... 8
Vary demands and resources to optimize challenge ................................................................................... 8
Foster collaboration and community ................................................................................................................ 9
Increase mastery-oriented feedback ................................................................................................................ 9
Provide options for Self Regulation ...................................................................................................................... 10
Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation ................................................................ 10
Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies ........................................................................................... 10
Develop self-assessment and reflection ........................................................................................................ 11
Provide multiple means of Representation ............................................................................................................ 11
Provide options for Perception .............................................................................................................................. 11
Offer ways of customizing the display of information.............................................................................. 12
Offer alternatives for auditory information ................................................................................................. 12
Offer alternatives for visual information....................................................................................................... 13
Provide options for Language & Symbols ........................................................................................................... 13
Clarify vocabulary and symbols......................................................................................................................... 14
Clarify syntax and structure ............................................................................................................................... 14
Support decoding of text, mathematical notation, and symbols .......................................................... 14
Promote understanding across languages .................................................................................................... 15
Illustrate through multiple media ..................................................................................................................... 15
Provide options for Comprehension .................................................................................................................... 16

2
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Activate or supply background knowledge................................................................................................... 16

Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships ........................................................16
Guide information processing and visualization......................................................................................... 17
Maximize transfer and generalization ............................................................................................................ 17
Provide multiple means of Action & Expression .................................................................................................. 18
Provide options for Physical Action ..................................................................................................................... 18
Vary the methods for response and navigation .......................................................................................... 19
Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies................................................................................. 19
Provide options for Expression & Communication ........................................................................................ 19
Use multiple media for communication.......................................................................................................... 20
Use multiple tools for construction and composition ............................................................................... 20
Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and performance ...........................21
Provide options for Executive Functions ........................................................................................................... 21
Guide appropriate goal-setting ......................................................................................................................... 21
Support planning and strategy development ............................................................................................... 22
Facilitate managing information and resources ......................................................................................... 22
Enhance capacity for monitoring progress ................................................................................................... 22
Research Evidence ........................................................................................................................................................... 23
Foundational Research on UDL ............................................................................................................................. 23
Research on the Principles of UDL........................................................................................................................ 24
Promising Practices Research ................................................................................................................................ 24
Implementation Research ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Research Evidence by Checkpoint ........................................................................................................................ 24
Engagement Research ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Representation Research .................................................................................................................................... 68
Action & Expression Research ........................................................................................................................ 113

3
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

What are the UDL Guidelines?

The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning, a
framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific
insights into how humans learn. Learn more about the Universal Design for Learning framework
from CAST. The UDL Guidelines can be used by educators, curriculum developers, researchers,
parents, and anyone else who wants to implement the UDL framework in a learning environment.
These guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied to any discipline or
domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning
opportunities.

About the Graphic Organizer

The UDL Guidelines are a tool that can be used to design learning experiences that meet the needs
of all learners. These Guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions for applying the UDL
framework to practice and help ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful,
challenging learning opportunities.

Organization
The UDL Guidelines are organized both horizontally and vertically. Vertically, the Guidelines are
organized according to the three principles of UDL: engagement, representation, and action and
expression. The principles are broken down into Guidelines, and each of these Guidelines have
corresponding “checkpoints” that provide more detailed suggestions.

The Guidelines are also organized horizontally. The “access” row includes the guidelines that
suggest ways to increase access to the learning goal by recruiting interest and by offering options
for perception and physical action.

The “build” row includes the guidelines that suggest ways to develop effort and persistence,
language and symbols, and expression and communication.

4
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Finally, the “internalize” row includes the guidelines that suggest ways to empower learners
through self-regulation, comprehension, and executive function.

Taken together, the Guidelines lead to the ultimate goal of UDL: to develop “expert learners” who
are, each in their own way, resourceful and knowledgeable, strategic and goal-directed, purposeful
and motivated.

Applying to Practice
The UDL Guidelines are not meant to be a “prescription” but a set of suggestions that can be
applied to reduce barriers and maximize learning opportunities for all learners. They can be mixed
and matched according to specific learning goals and can be applied to particular content areas
and contexts.
In many cases, educators find that they are already incorporating some aspects of these guidelines
into their practice; however, barriers to the learning goal may still be present. We see the
Guidelines as a tool to support the development of a shared language in the design of goals,
assessments, methods, and materials that lead to accessible, meaningful, and challenging learning
experiences for all.

Provide multiple means of Engagement

Affect represents a crucial element to learning, and learners differ markedly in the ways in which
they can be engaged or motivated to learn. There are a variety of sources that can influence
individual variation in affect including neurology, culture, personal relevance, subjectivity, and
background knowledge, along with a variety of other factors. Some learners are highly engaged by
spontaneity and novelty while others are disengaged, even frightened, by those aspects,
preferring strict routine. Some learners might like to work alone, while others prefer to work with
their peers. In reality, there is not one means of engagement that will be optimal for all learners in
all contexts; providing multiple options for engagement is essential.

Provide options for Recruiting Interest

Spark excitement and curiosity for learning
Information that is not attended to, that does not engage learners’ cognition, is in fact
inaccessible. It is inaccessible both in the moment and in the future, because relevant information
goes unnoticed and unprocessed. As a result, teachers devote considerable effort to recruiting
learner attention and engagement. But learners differ significantly in what attracts their attention
and engages their interest. Even the same learner will differ over time and circumstance; their

5
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

“interests” change as they develop and gain new knowledge and skills, as their biological
environments change, and as they develop into self-determined adolescents and adults. It is,
therefore, important to have alternative ways to recruit learner interest, ways that reflect the
important inter- and intra-individual differences amongst learners.

Optimize individual choice and autonomy

Empower learners to take charge of their own learning.
In an instructional setting, it is often inappropriate to provide choice of the learning objective
itself, but it is often appropriate to offer choices in how that objective can be reached, in the
context for achieving the objective, in the tools or supports available, and so forth. Offering
learners choices can develop self-determination, pride in accomplishment, and increase the
degree to which they feel connected to their learning. However, it is important to note that
individuals differ in how much and what kind of choices they prefer to have. It is therefore not
enough to simply provide choice. The right kind of choice and level of independence must be
optimized to ensure engagement.
● Provide learners with as much discretion and autonomy as possible by providing choices in
such things as:
○ The level of perceived challenge
○ The type of rewards or recognition available
○ The context or content used for practicing and assessing skills
○ The tools used for information gathering or production
○ The color, design, or graphics of layouts, etc.
○ The sequence or timing for completion of subcomponents of tasks
● Allow learners to participate in the design of classroom activities and academic tasks
● Involve learners, where and whenever possible, in setting their own personal academic and
behavioral goals

Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity

Connect learning to experiences that are meaningful and valuable.
Individuals are engaged by information and activities that are relevant and valuable to their
interests and goals. This does not necessarily mean that the situation has to be equivalent to real
life, as fiction can be just as engaging to learners as non-fiction, but it does have to be relevant and
authentic to learners’ individual goals and the instructional goals. Individuals are rarely interested
in information and activities that have no relevance or value. In an educational setting, one of the
most important ways that teachers recruit interest is to highlight the utility and relevance of
learning and to demonstrate that relevance through authentic, meaningful activities. It is a
mistake, of course, to assume that all learners will find the same activities or information equally
relevant or valuable to their goals. To recruit all learners equally, it is critical to provide options
that optimize what is relevant, valuable, and meaningful to the learner.
● Vary activities and sources of information so that they can be:
○ Personalized and contextualized to learners’ lives
○ Culturally relevant and responsive

6
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

○ Socially relevant
○ Age and ability appropriate
○ Appropriate for different racial, cultural, ethnic, and gender groups
● Design activities so that learning outcomes are authentic, communicate to real audiences,
and reflect a purpose that is clear to the participants
● Provide tasks that allow for active participation, exploration and experimentation
● Invite personal response, evaluation and self-reflection to content and activities
● Include activities that foster the use of imagination to solve novel and relevant problems,
or make sense of complex ideas in creative ways

Minimize threats and distractions

Foster a safe space to learn and take risks.
One of the most important things a teacher can do is to create a safe space for learners. To do this,
teachers need to reduce potential threats and distractions in the learning environment. When
learners have to focus their attention on having basic needs met or avoiding a negative experience
they cannot concentrate on the learning process. While the physical safety of a learning
environment is of course necessary, subtler types of threats and distractions must be attended to
as well; what is threatening or potentially distracting depends on learners’ individual needs and
background. An English Language Learner might find language experimentation threatening, while
some learners might find too much sensory stimulation distracting. The optimal instructional
environment offers options that reduce threats and negative distractions for everyone to create a
safe space in which learning can occur.
● Create an accepting and supportive classroom climate
● Vary the level of novelty or risk
○ Charts, calendars, schedules, visible timers, cues, etc. that can increase the
predictability of daily activities and transitions
○ Creation of class routines
○ Alerts and previews that can help learners anticipate and prepare for changes in
activities, schedules, and novel events
○ Options that can, in contrast to the above, maximize the unexpected, surprising, or
novel in highly routinized activities
● Vary the level of sensory stimulation
○ Variation in the presence of background noise or visual stimulation, noise buffers,
number of features or items presented at a time
○ Variation in pace of work, length of work sessions, availability of breaks or time-
outs, or timing or sequence of activities
● Vary the social demands required for learning or performance, the perceived level of
support and protection and the requirements for public display and evaluation
● Involve all participants in whole class discussions

Provide options for Sustaining Effort & Persistence

Tackle challenges with focus and determination.

7
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Many kinds of learning, particularly the learning of skills and strategies, require sustained
attention and effort. When motivated to do so, many learners can regulate their attention and
affect in order to sustain the effort and concentration that such learning will require. However,
learners differ considerably in their ability to self-regulate in this way. Their differences reflect
disparities in their initial motivation, their capacity and skills for self-regulation, their
susceptibility to contextual interference, and so forth. A key instructional goal is to build the
individual skills in self-regulation and self-determination that will equalize such learning
opportunities (see Self Regulation). In the meantime, the external environment must provide
options that can equalize accessibility by supporting learners who differ in initial motivation, self-
regulation skills, etc.

Heighten salience of goals and objectives

Set a vision for the goal and why it matters.
Over the course of any sustained project or systematic practice, there are many sources of
interest and engagement that compete for attention and effort. For some learners, they need
support to remember the initial goal or to maintain a consistent vision of the rewards of reaching
that goal. For those learners, it is important to build in periodic or persistent “reminders” of both
the goal and its value in order for them to sustain effort and concentration in the face of
distracters.
● Prompt or require learners to explicitly formulate or restate goal
● Display the goal in multiple ways
● Encourage division of long-term goals into short-term objectives
● Demonstrate the use of hand-held or computer-based scheduling tools
● Use prompts or scaffolds for visualizing desired outcome
● Engage learners in assessment discussions of what constitutes excellence and generate
relevant examples that connect to their cultural background and interests

Vary demands and resources to optimize challenge

Rise to high expectations using flexible tools and supports.
Learners vary not only in their skills and abilities, but also in the kinds of challenges that motivate
them to do their best work. All learners need to be challenged, but not always in the same way. In
addition to providing appropriately varied levels and types of demands, learners also need to be
provided with the right kinds of resources necessary for successful completion of the task.
Learners cannot meet a demand without appropriate, and flexible, resources. Providing a range of
demands, and a range of possible resources, allows all learners to find challenges that are
optimally motivating. Balancing the resources available to meet the challenge is vital.
● Differentiate the degree of difficulty or complexity within which core activities can be
completed
● Provide alternatives in the permissible tools and scaffolds
● Vary the degrees of freedom for acceptable performance
● Emphasize process, effort, improvement in meeting standards as alternatives to external
evaluation and competition

8
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Foster collaboration and community

Cultivate a community of learners
In the 21st century, all learners must be able to communicate and collaborate effectively within a
community of learners. This is easier for some than others but remains a goal for all learners. The
distribution of mentoring through peers can greatly increase the opportunities for one-on-one
support. When carefully structured, such peer cooperation can significantly increase the available
support for sustained engagement. Flexible rather than fixed grouping allows better
differentiation and multiple roles, as well as providing opportunities to learn how to work most
effectively with others. Options should be provided in how learners build and utilize these
important skills.
● Create cooperative learning groups with clear goals, roles, and responsibilities
● Create school-wide programs of positive behavior support with differentiated objectives
and supports
● Provide prompts that guide learners in when and how to ask peers and/or teachers for
help
● Encourage and support opportunities for peer interactions and supports (e.g., peer-tutors)
● Construct communities of learners engaged in common interests or activities
● Create expectations for group work (e.g., rubrics, norms, etc.)

Increase mastery-oriented feedback

Guide learning by emphasizing the role of effort and process.
Assessment is most productive for sustaining engagement when the feedback is relevant,
constructive, accessible, consequential, and timely. But the type of feedback is also critical in
helping learners to sustain the motivation and effort essential to learning. Mastery-oriented
feedback is the type of feedback that guides learners toward mastery rather than a fixed notion of
performance or compliance. It also emphasizes the role of effort and practice rather than
“intelligence” or inherent “ability” as an important factor in guiding learners toward successful
long-term habits and learning practices. These distinctions may be particularly important for
learners whose disabilities have been interpreted, by either themselves or their caregivers, as
permanently constraining and fixed.
● Provide feedback that encourages perseverance, focuses on development of efficacy and
self-awareness, and encourages the use of specific supports and strategies in the face of
challenge
● Provide feedback that emphasizes effort, improvement, and achieving a standard rather
than on relative performance
● Provide feedback that is frequent, timely, and specific
● Provide feedback that is substantive and informative rather than comparative or
competitive
● Provide feedback that models how to incorporate evaluation, including identifying
patterns of errors and wrong answers, into positive strategies for future success

9
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Provide options for Self Regulation

Harness the power of emotions and motivation in learning.
While it is important to design the extrinsic environment so that it can support motivation and
engagement (see Recruiting Interest and Sustaining Effort & Persistence), it is also important to
develop learners’ intrinsic abilities to regulate their own emotions and motivations. The ability to
self-regulate—to strategically modulate one’s emotional reactions or states in order to be more
effective at coping and engaging with the environment—is a critical aspect of human
development. While many individuals develop self-regulatory skills on their own, either by trial
and error or by observing successful adults, many others have significant difficulties in developing
these skills. Unfortunately, some classrooms do not address these skills explicitly, leaving them as
part of the “implicit” curriculum that is often inaccessible or invisible to many. Those teachers and
settings that address self-regulation explicitly will be most successful in applying the UDL
principles through modeling and prompting in a variety of methods. As in other kinds of learning,
individual differences are more likely than uniformity. A successful approach requires providing
sufficient alternatives to support learners with very different aptitudes and prior experience to
effectively manage their own engagement and affect.

Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation

Set personal goals that inspire confidence and ownership of learning.
One important aspect of self-regulation is the personal knowledge each learner has about what he
or she finds motivating, be it intrinsic or extrinsic. To accomplish this, learners need to be able to
set personal goals that can be realistically reached, as well as fostering positive beliefs that their
goals can be met. However, learners also need to be able to deal with frustration and avoid anxiety
when they are in the process of meeting their goals. Multiple options need to be given to learners
to help them stay motivated.
● Provide prompts, reminders, guides, rubrics, checklists that focus on:
○ Self-regulatory goals like reducing the frequency of aggressive outbursts in
response to frustration
○ Increasing the length of on-task orientation in the face of distractions
○ Elevating the frequency of self-reflection and self-reinforcements
● Provide coaches, mentors, or agents that model the process of setting personally
appropriate goals that take into account both strengths and weaknesses
● Support activities that encourage self-reflection and identification of personal goals

Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies

Develop and manage healthy emotional responses and interactions.
Providing a model of self-regulatory skills is not sufficient for most learners. They will need
sustained apprenticeships that include scaffolding. Reminders, models, checklists, and so forth can
assist learners in choosing and trying an adaptive strategy for managing and directing their
emotional responses to external events (e.g., strategies for coping with anxiety-producing social
settings or for reducing task-irrelevant distracters) or internal events (e.g., strategies for
decreasing rumination on depressive or anxiety-producing ideation). Such scaffolds should

10
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

provide sufficient alternatives to meet the challenge of individual differences in the kinds of
strategies that might be successful and the independence with which they can be applied.
Provide differentiated models, scaffolds and feedback for:
● Managing frustration
● Seeking external emotional support
● Developing internal controls and coping skills
● Appropriately handling subject specific phobias and judgments of “natural” aptitude (e.g.,
“how can I improve on the areas I am struggling in?” rather than “I am not good at math”)
● Use real life situations or simulations to demonstrate coping skills

Develop self-assessment and reflection

Increase awareness around progress toward goals and how to learn from mistakes.
In order to develop better capacity for self-regulation, learners need to learn to monitor their
emotions and reactivity carefully and accurately. Individuals differ considerably in their capability
and propensity for metacognition, and some learners will need a great deal of explicit instruction
and modeling in order to learn how to do this successfully. For many learners, merely recognizing
that they are making progress toward greater independence is highly motivating. Alternatively,
one of the key factors in learners losing motivation is their inability to recognize their own
progress. It is important, moreover, that learners have multiple models and scaffolds of different
self-assessment techniques so that they can identify, and choose, ones that are optimal.
● Offer devices, aids, or charts to assist individuals in learning to collect, chart and display
data from their own behavior for the purpose of monitoring changes in those behaviors
● Use activities that include a means by which learners get feedback and have access to
alternative scaffolds (e.g., charts, templates, feedback displays) that support
understanding progress in a manner that is understandable and timely

Provide multiple means of Representation

Learners differ in the ways that they perceive and comprehend information that is presented to
them. For example, those with sensory disabilities (e.g., blindness or deafness); learning disabilities
(e.g., dyslexia); language or cultural differences, and so forth may all require different ways of
approaching content. Others may simply grasp information quicker or more efficiently through
visual or auditory means rather than printed text. Also learning, and transfer of learning, occurs
when multiple representations are used, because they allow students to make connections within,
as well as between, concepts. In short, there is not one means of representation that will be
optimal for all learners; providing options for representation is essential.

Provide options for Perception

Interact with flexible content that doesn't depend on a single sense like sight, hearing, movement, or
touch.
Learning is impossible if information is imperceptible to the learner, and difficult when
information is presented in formats that require extraordinary effort or assistance. To reduce
barriers to learning, it is important to ensure that key information is equally perceptible to all

11
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

learners by: 1) providing the same information through different modalities (e.g., through vision,
hearing, or touch); 2) providing information in a format that will allow for adjustability by the
user (e.g., text that can be enlarged, sounds that can be amplified). Such multiple representations
not only ensure that information is accessible to learners with particular sensory and perceptual
disabilities, but also easier to access and comprehend for many others.

Offer ways of customizing the display of information

Use flexible materials with settings that can be adjusted based on needs and preferences.
In print materials, the display of information is fixed and permanent. In properly prepared digital
materials, the display of the same information is very malleable and customizable. For example, a
call-out box of background information may be displayed in a different location, or enlarged, or
emphasized by the use of color, or deleted entirely. Such malleability provides options for
increasing the perceptual clarity and salience of information for a wide range of learners and
adjustments for preferences of others. While these customizations are difficult with print
materials, they are commonly available automatically in digital materials, though it cannot be
assumed that because it is digital it is accessible as many digital materials are equally inaccessible.
Educators and learners should work together to attain the best match of features to learning
needs.
● Display information in a flexible format so that the following perceptual features can be
varied:
○ The size of text, images, graphs, tables, or other visual content
○ The contrast between background and text or image
○ The color used for information or emphasis
○ The volume or rate of speech or sound
○ The speed or timing of video, animation, sound, simulations, etc.
○ The layout of visual or other elements
○ The font used for print materials

Offer alternatives for auditory information

Share information in more ways than sound and voice alone.
Sound is a particularly effective way to convey the impact of information, which is why sound
design is so important in movies and why the human voice is particularly effective for conveying
emotion and significance. However, information conveyed solely through sound is not equally
accessible to all learners and is especially inaccessible for learners with hearing disabilities, for
learners who need more time to process information, or for learners who have memory
difficulties. In addition, listening itself is a complex strategic skill that must be learned. To ensure
that all learners have access to learning, options should be available for any information, including
emphasis, presented aurally.
● Use text equivalents in the form of captions or automated speech-to-text (voice
recognition) for spoken language
● Provide visual diagrams, charts, notations of music or sound
● Provide written transcripts for videos or auditory clips

12
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

● Provide American Sign Language (ASL) for spoken English

● Use visual analogues to represent emphasis and prosody (e.g., emoticons, symbols, or
images)
● Provide visual or tactile (e.g., vibrations) equivalents for sound effects or alerts
● Provide visual and/or emotional description for musical interpretation

Offer alternatives for visual information

Share information in more ways than images and text alone.
Images, graphics, animations, video, or text are often the optimal way to present information,
especially when the information is about the relationships between objects, actions, numbers, or
events. But such visual representations are not equally accessible to all learners, especially
learners with visual disabilities or those who are not familiar with the type of graphic being used.
Visual information can be quite dense, particularly with visual art, which can have multiple
complex meanings and interpretations depending on contextual factors and the viewer’s
knowledge base. To ensure that all learners have equal access to information, it is essential to
provide non-visual alternatives.
● Provide descriptions (text or spoken) for all images, graphics, video, or animations
● Use touch equivalents (tactile graphics or objects of reference) for key visuals that
represent concepts
● Provide physical objects and spatial models to convey perspective or interaction
● Provide auditory cues for key concepts and transitions in visual information
Text is a special case of visual information. The transformation from text into audio is among the
most easily accomplished methods for increasing accessibility. The advantage of text over audio is
its permanence, but providing text that is easily transformable into audio accomplishes that
permanence without sacrificing the advantages of audio. Digital synthetic text-to-speech is
increasingly effective but still disappoints in its ability to carry the valuable information in
prosody.
● Follow accessibility standards (NIMAS, DAISY, etc.) when creating digital text
● Allow for a competent aide, partner, or “intervener” to read text aloud
● Provide access to text-to-speech software

Provide options for Language & Symbols

Communicate through languages that create a shared understanding.
Learners vary in their facility with different forms of representation—both linguistic and non-
linguistic. Vocabulary that may sharpen and clarify concepts for one learner may be opaque and
foreign to another. An equal sign (=) might help some learners understand that the two sides of the
equation need to be balanced, but might cause confusion to a student who does not understand
what it means. A graph that illustrates the relationship between two variables may be informative
to one learner and inaccessible or puzzling to another. A picture or image that carries meaning for
some learners may carry very different meanings for learners from differing cultural or familial
backgrounds. As a result, inequalities arise when information is presented to all learners through
a single form of representation. An important instructional strategy is to ensure that alternative

13
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

representations are provided not only for accessibility, but for clarity and comprehensibility
across all learners.

Clarify vocabulary and symbols

Construct meaning from words, symbols, and numbers using different representations.
The semantic elements through which information is presented—the words, symbols, numbers,
and icons—are differentially accessible to learners with varying backgrounds, languages, and
lexical knowledge. To ensure accessibility for all, key vocabulary, labels, icons, and symbols should
be linked to, or associated with, alternate representations of their meaning (e.g., an embedded
glossary or definition, a graphic equivalent, a chart or map). Idioms, archaic expressions, culturally
exclusive phrases, and slang should be translated.
● Pre-teach vocabulary and symbols, especially in ways that promote connection to the
learners’ experience and prior knowledge
● Provide graphic symbols with alternative text descriptions
● Highlight how complex terms, expressions, or equations are composed of simpler words or
symbols
● Embed support for vocabulary and symbols within the text (e.g., hyperlinks or footnotes to
definitions, explanations, illustrations, previous coverage, translations)
● Embed support for unfamiliar references within the text (e.g., domain specific notation,
lesser-known properties and theorems, idioms, academic language, figurative language,
mathematical language, jargon, archaic language, colloquialism, and dialect)

Clarify syntax and structure

Make the patterns and properties of systems like grammar, musical notation, taxonomies, and equations
explicit.
Single elements of meaning (like words or numbers) can be combined to make new meanings.
Those new meanings, however, depend upon understanding the rules or structures (like syntax in
a sentence or the properties of equations) of how those elements are combined. When the syntax
of a sentence or the structure of a graphical representation is not obvious or familiar to learners,
comprehension suffers. To ensure that all learners have equal access to information, provide
alternative representations that clarify, or make more explicit, the syntactic or structural
relationships between elements of meaning.
● Clarify unfamiliar syntax (in language or in math formulas) or underlying structure (in
diagrams, graphs, illustrations, extended expositions or narratives) through alternatives
that:
○ Highlight structural relations or make them more explicit
○ Make connections to previously learned structures
○ Make relationships between elements explicit (e.g., highlighting the transition
words in an essay, links between ideas in a concept map, etc.)

Support decoding of text, mathematical notation, and symbols

Make sure text and symbols don't get in the way of the learning goal.

14
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

The ability to fluently decode words, numbers or symbols that have been presented in an encoded
format (e.g., visual symbols for text, haptic symbols for Braille, algebraic expressions for
relationships) takes practice for any learner, but some learners will reach automaticity more
quickly than others. Learners need consistent and meaningful exposure to symbols so that they
can comprehend and use them effectively. Lack of fluency or automaticity greatly increases the
cognitive load of decoding, thereby reducing the capacity for information processing and
comprehension. To ensure that all learners have equal access to knowledge, at least when the
ability to decode is not the focus of instruction, it is important to provide options that reduce the
barriers that decoding raises for learners who are unfamiliar or dysfluent with the symbols.
● Allow the use of Text-to-Speech
● Use automatic voicing with digital mathematical notation (Math ML)
● Use digital text with an accompanying human voice recording (e.g., Daisy Talking Books)
● Allow for flexibility and easy access to multiple representations of notation where
appropriate (e.g., formulas, word problems, graphs)
● Offer clarification of notation through lists of key terms

Promote understanding across languages

Use translations, descriptions, movement, and images to support learning in unfamiliar or complex
languages.
The language of curricular materials is usually monolingual, but often the learners in the classroom
are not, so the promotion of cross-linguistic understanding is especially important. For new
learners of the dominant language (e.g., English in American schools) or for learners of academic
language (the dominant discourse in school), the accessibility of information is greatly reduced
when no linguistic alternatives are available. Providing alternatives, especially for key information
or vocabulary is an important aspect of accessibility.

● Make all key information in the dominant language (e.g., English) also available in first
languages (e.g., Spanish) for learners with limited-English proficiency and in ASL for
learners who are deaf
● Link key vocabulary words to definitions and pronunciations in both dominant and
heritage languages
● Define domain-specific vocabulary (e.g., “map key” in social studies) using both domain-
specific and common terms
● Provide electronic translation tools or links to multilingual glossaries on the web
● Embed visual, non-linguistic supports for vocabulary clarification (pictures, videos, etc.)

Illustrate through multiple media

Make learning come alive with simulations, graphics, activities, and videos.
Classroom materials are often dominated by information in text. But text is a weak format for
presenting many concepts and for explaining most processes. Furthermore, text is a particularly
weak form of presentation for learners who have text- or language-related disabilities. Providing
alternatives—especially illustrations, simulations, images or interactive graphics—can make the

15
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

information in text more comprehensible for any learner and accessible for some who would find
it completely inaccessible in text.
● Present key concepts in one form of symbolic representation (e.g., an expository text or a
math equation) with an alternative form (e.g., an illustration, dance/movement, diagram,
table, model, video, comic strip, storyboard, photograph, animation, physical or virtual
manipulative)
● Make explicit links between information provided in texts and any accompanying
representation of that information in illustrations, equations, charts, or diagrams

Provide options for Comprehension

Construct meaning and generate new understandings.
The purpose of education is not to make information accessible, but rather to teach learners how
to transform accessible information into usable knowledge. Decades of cognitive science research
have demonstrated that the capability to transform accessible information into usable knowledge
is not a passive process but an active one. Constructing usable knowledge, knowledge that is
accessible for future decision-making, depends not upon merely perceiving information, but
upon active “information processing skills” like selective attending, integrating new information
with prior knowledge, strategic categorization, and active memorization. Individuals differ greatly
in their skills in information processing and in their access to prior knowledge through which they
can assimilate new information. Proper design and presentation of information—the
responsibility of any curriculum or instructional methodology—can provide the scaffolds
necessary to ensure that all learners have access to knowledge.

Activate or supply background knowledge

Build connections to prior understandings and experiences.
Information is more accessible and likely to be assimilated by learners when it is presented in a
way that primes, activates, or provides any pre-requisite knowledge. Barriers and inequities exist
when some learners lack the background knowledge that is critical to assimilating or using new
information. However, there are also barriers for learners who have the necessary background
knowledge but might not know it is relevant. Those barriers can be reduced when options are
available that supply or activate relevant prior knowledge, or link to the prerequisite information
elsewhere.
● Anchor instruction by linking to and activating relevant prior knowledge (e.g., using visual
imagery, concept anchoring, or concept mastery routines)
● Use advanced organizers (e.g., KWL methods, concept maps)
● Pre-teach critical prerequisite concepts through demonstration or models
● Bridge concepts with relevant analogies and metaphors
● Make explicit cross-curricular connections (e.g., teaching literacy strategies in the social
studies classroom)

Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships

Accentuate important information and how it relates to the learning goal.

16
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

One of the big differences between experts and novices in any domain is the facility with which
they distinguish what is critical from what is unimportant or irrelevant. Since experts quickly
recognize the most important features in information, they allocate their time efficiently, quickly
identifying what is valuable and finding the right “hooks” with which to assimilate the most
valuable information into existing knowledge. As a consequence, one of the most effective ways to
make information more accessible is to provide explicit cues or prompts that assist individuals in
attending to those features that matter most while avoiding those that matter least.
● Highlight or emphasize key elements in text, graphics, diagrams, formulas
● Use outlines, graphic organizers, unit organizer routines, concept organizer routines, and
concept mastery routines to emphasize key ideas and relationships
● Use multiple examples and non-examples to emphasize critical features
● Use cues and prompts to draw attention to critical features
● Highlight previously learned skills that can be used to solve unfamiliar problems

Guide information processing and visualization

Support the process of meaning-making through models, scaffolds, and feedback.
Successful transformation of information into usable knowledge often requires the application of
mental strategies and skills for “processing” information. These cognitive, or meta-cognitive,
strategies involve the selection and manipulation of information so that it can be better
summarized, categorized, prioritized, contextualized and remembered. While some learners in
any classroom may have a full repertoire of these strategies, along with the knowledge of when to
apply them, most learners do not. Well-designed materials can provide customized and embedded
models, scaffolds, and feedback to assist learners who have very diverse abilities in using those
strategies effectively.
● Give explicit prompts for each step in a sequential process
● Provide options for organizational methods and approaches (tables and algorithms for
processing mathematical operations)
● Provide interactive models that guide exploration and new understandings
● Introduce graduated scaffolds that support information processing strategies
● Provide multiple entry points to a lesson and optional pathways through content (e.g.,
exploring big ideas through dramatic works, arts and literature, film and media)
● “Chunk” information into smaller elements
● Progressively release information (e.g., sequential highlighting)
● Remove unnecessary distractions unless they are essential to the instructional goal

Maximize transfer and generalization

Apply learning to new contexts.
All learners need to be able to generalize and transfer their learning to new contexts. Students
vary in the amount of scaffolding they need for memory and transfer in order to improve their
ability to access their prior learning. Of course, all learners can benefit from assistance in how to
transfer the information they have to other situations, as learning is not about individual facts in
isolation, and students need multiple representations for this to occur. Without this support and

17
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

the use of multiple representations, information might be learned, but is inaccessible in new
situations. Supports for memory, generalization, and transfer include techniques that are designed
to heighten the memorability of the information, as well as those that prompt and guide learners
to employ explicit strategies.
● Provide checklists, organizers, sticky notes, electronic reminders
● Prompt the use of mnemonic strategies and devices (e.g., visual imagery, paraphrasing
strategies, method of loci, etc.)
● Incorporate explicit opportunities for review and practice
● Provide templates, graphic organizers, concept maps to support note-taking
● Provide scaffolds that connect new information to prior knowledge (e.g., word webs, half-
full concept maps)
● Embed new ideas in familiar ideas and contexts (e.g., use of analogy, metaphor, drama,
music, film, etc.)
● Provide explicit, supported opportunities to generalize learning to new situations (e.g.,
different types of problems that can be solved with linear equations, using physics
principles to build a playground)
● Offer opportunities over time to revisit key ideas and linkages between ideas

Provide multiple means of Action & Expression

Learners differ in the ways that they can navigate a learning environment and express what
they know. For example, individuals with significant movement impairments (e.g., cerebral palsy),
those who struggle with strategic and organizational abilities (executive function disorders), those
who have language barriers, and so forth approach learning tasks very differently. Some may be
able to express themselves well in written text but not speech, and vice versa. It should also be
recognized that action and expression require a great deal of strategy, practice, and organization,
and this is another area in which learners can differ. In reality, there is not one means of action
and expression that will be optimal for all learners; providing options for action and expression is
essential.

Provide options for Physical Action

Interact with accessible materials and tools.
A textbook or workbook in a print format provides limited means of navigation or physical
interaction (e.g., turning pages, handwriting in spaces provided). Many interactive pieces of
educational software similarly provide only limited means of navigation or interaction (e.g., using a
joystick or keyboard). Navigation and interaction in those limited ways will raise barriers for some
learners—those with physical disabilities, blindness, dysgraphia, or who need various kinds of
executive functioning supports. It is important to provide materials with which all learners can
interact. Properly designed curricular materials provide a seamless interface with common
assistive technologies through which individuals with movement impairments can navigate and
express what they know—to allow navigation or interaction with a single switch, through voice
activated switches, expanded keyboards and others.

18
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Vary the methods for response and navigation

Interact with tools and environments that make learning physically accessible to all.
Learners differ widely in their capacity to navigate their physical environment. To reduce barriers
to learning that would be introduced by the motor demands of a task, provide alternative means
for response, selection, and composition. In addition, learners differ widely in their optimal means
for navigating through information and activities. To provide equal opportunity for interaction
with learning experiences, an instructor must ensure that there are multiple means for navigation
and control is accessible.
● Provide alternatives in the requirements for rate, timing, speed, and range of motor action
required to interact with instructional materials, physical manipulatives, and technologies
● Provide alternatives for physically responding or indicating selections (e.g., alternatives to
marking with pen and pencil, alternatives to mouse control)
● Provide alternatives for physically interacting with materials by hand, voice, single switch,
joystick, keyboard, or adapted keyboard

Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies

Open doors to learning with accessible tools and devices.
Providing a learner with a tool is often not enough. We need to provide the support to use the tool
effectively. Many learners need help navigating through their environment (both in terms of
physical space and the curriculum), and all learners should be given the opportunity to use tools
that might help them meet the goal of full participation in the classroom. However, significant
numbers of learners with disabilities have to use Assistive Technologies for navigation,
interaction, and composition on a regular basis. It is critical that instructional technologies and
curricula do not impose inadvertent barriers to the use of these assistive technologies. An
important design consideration, for example, is to ensure that there are keyboard commands for
any mouse action so that learners can use common assistive technologies that depend upon those
commands. It is also important, however, to ensure that making a lesson physically accessible does
not inadvertently remove its challenge to learning.
● Provide alternate keyboard commands for mouse action
● Build switch and scanning options for increased independent access and keyboard
alternatives
● Provide access to alternative keyboards
● Customize overlays for touch screens and keyboards
● Select software that works seamlessly with keyboard alternatives and alt keys

Provide options for Expression & Communication

Compose and share ideas using tools that help attain learning goals.
There is no medium of expression that is equally suited for all learners or for all kinds of
communication. On the contrary, there are media, which seem poorly suited for some kinds of
expression, and for some kinds of learning. While a learner with dyslexia may excel at story-telling
in conversation, he may falter when telling that same story in writing. It is important to provide
alternative modalities for expression, both to level the playing field among learners and to allow

19
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

the learner to appropriately (or easily) express knowledge, ideas and concepts in the learning
environment.

Use multiple media for communication

Express learning in flexible ways.
Unless specific media and materials are critical to the goal (e.g., learning to paint specifically with
oils, learning to hand write with calligraphy) it is important to provide alternative media for
expression. Such alternatives reduce media-specific barriers to expression among learners with a
variety of special needs, but also increase the opportunities for all learners to develop a wider
range of expression in a media-rich world. For example, it is important for all learners to learn
composition, not just writing, and to learn the optimal medium for any particular content of
expression and audience.
● Compose in multiple media such as text, speech, drawing, illustration, comics, storyboards,
design, film, music, dance/movement, visual art, sculpture, or video
● Use physical manipulatives (e.g., blocks, 3D models, base-ten blocks)
● Use social media and interactive web tools (e.g., discussion forums, chats, web design,
annotation tools, storyboards, comic strips, animation presentations)
● Solve problems using a variety of strategies

Use multiple tools for construction and composition

Share thoughts and ideas using tools that complement the learning goal.
There is a tendency in schooling to focus on traditional tools rather than contemporary ones. This
tendency has several liabilities: 1) it does not prepare learners for their future; 2) it limits the
range of content and teaching methods that can be implemented; 3) it restricts learners ability to
express knowledge about content (assessment); and, most importantly, 4) it constricts the kinds of
learners who can be successful. Current media tools provide a more flexible and accessible toolkit
with which learners can more successfully take part in their learning and articulate what they
know. Unless a lesson is focused on learning to use a specific tool (e.g., learning to draw with a
compass), curricula should allow many alternatives. Like any craftsman, learners should learn to
use tools that are an optimal match between their abilities and the demands of the task.
● Provide spell checkers, grammar checkers, word prediction software
● Provide text-to-speech software (voice recognition), human dictation, recording
● Provide calculators, graphing calculators, geometric sketch pads, or pre-formatted graph
paper
● Provide sentence starters or sentence strips
● Use story webs, outlining tools, or concept mapping tools
● Provide Computer-Aided-Design (CAD), music notation (writing) software, or
mathematical notation software
● Provide virtual or concrete mathematics manipulatives (e.g., base-10 blocks, algebra
blocks)
● Use web applications (e.g., wikis, animation, presentation)

20
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and performance
Apply and gradually release scaffolds to support independent learning.
Learners must develop a variety of fluencies (e.g., visual, audio, mathematical, reading, etc.). This
means that they often need multiple scaffolds to assist them as they practice and develop
independence. Curricula should offer alternatives in the degrees of freedom available, with highly
scaffolded and supported opportunities provided for some and wide degrees of freedom for
others who are ready for independence. Fluency is also built through many opportunities for
performance, be it in the form of an essay or a dramatic production. Performance helps learners
because it allows them to synthesize their learning in personally relevant ways. Overall, it is
important to provide options that build learners’ fluencies.
● Provide differentiated models to emulate (i.e. models that demonstrate the same
outcomes but use differing approaches, strategies, skills, etc.)
● Provide differentiated mentors (i.e., teachers/tutors who use different approaches to
motivate, guide, feedback or inform)
● Provide scaffolds that can be gradually released with increasing independence and skills
(e.g., embedded into digital reading and writing software)
● Provide differentiated feedback (e.g., feedback that is accessible because it can be
customized to individual learners)
● Provide multiple examples of novel solutions to authentic problems

Provide options for Executive Functions

Develop and act on plans to make the most out of learning.
At the highest level of the human capacity to act skillfully are the so-called “executive functions.”
Associated with networks that include the prefrontal cortex, these capabilities allow humans to
overcome impulsive, short-term reactions to their environment and instead to set long-term goals,
plan effective strategies for reaching those goals, monitor their progress, and modify strategies as
needed. In short, they allow learners to take advantage of their environment. Of critical
importance to educators is the fact that executive functions have very limited capacity due to
working memory. This is true because executive capacity is sharply reduced when: 1) executive
functioning capacity must be devoted to managing “lower level” skills and responses which are not
automatic or fluent thus the capacity for “higher level” functions is taken; and 2) executive
capacity itself is reduced due to some sort of higher level disability or to lack of fluency with
executive strategies. The UDL framework typically involves efforts to expand executive capacity
in two ways: 1) by scaffolding lower-level skills so that they require less executive processing; and
2) by scaffolding higher level executive skills and strategies so that they are more effective and
developed. Previous guidelines have addressed lower-level scaffolding, this guideline addresses
ways to provide scaffolding for executive functions themselves.

Guide appropriate goal-setting

Practice setting challenging and authentic goals.
It cannot be assumed that learners will set appropriate goals to guide their work, but the answer
should not be to provide goals for students. Such a short-term remedy does little to develop new

21
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

skills or strategies in any learner. It is therefore important that learners develop the skill of
effective goal setting. The UDL framework embeds graduated scaffolds for learning to set
personal goals that are both challenging and realistic.
● Provide prompts and scaffolds to estimate effort, resources, and difficulty
● Provide models or examples of the process and product of goal-setting
● Provide guides and checklists for scaffolding goal-setting
● Post goals, objectives, and schedules in an obvious place

Support planning and strategy development

Formulate reasonable plans for reaching goals.
Once a goal is set, effective learners and problem-solvers plan a strategy, including the tools they
will use, for reaching that goal. For young children in any domain, older learners in a new domain,
or any learner with one of the disabilities that compromise executive functions (e.g., intellectual
disabilities), the strategic planning step is often omitted, and trial and error attempts take its place.
To help learners become more plan-full and strategic a variety of options are needed, such as
cognitive “speed bumps” that prompt them to “stop and think,” graduated scaffolds that help them
actually implement strategies; or engagement in decision-making with competent mentors.
● Embed prompts to “stop and think” before acting as well as adequate space
● Embed prompts to “show and explain your work” (e.g., portfolio review, art critiques)
● Provide checklists and project planning templates for understanding the problem, setting
up prioritization, sequences, and schedules of steps
● Embed coaches or mentors that model think-alouds of the process
● Provide guides for breaking long-term goals into reachable short-term objectives

Facilitate managing information and resources

Support organization and memory using flexible tools and processes.
One of the limits of executive function is that imposed by the limitations of so-called working
memory. This “scratch pad” for maintaining chunks of information where they can be accessed as
part of comprehension and problem-solving is very limited for any learner and even more severely
limited for many learners with learning and cognitive disabilities. As a result, many such learners
seem disorganized, forgetful, and unprepared. Wherever working memory capacity is not
construct-relevant in a lesson, it is important to provide a variety of internal scaffolds and external
organizational aids—exactly those kinds that executives use—to keep information organized and
“in mind.”
● Provide graphic organizers and templates for data collection and organizing information
● Embed prompts for categorizing and systematizing
● Provide checklists and guides for note-taking

Enhance capacity for monitoring progress

Analyze growth over time and how to build from it.
Learning cannot happen without feedback, and that means learners need a clear picture of the
progress that they are (or are not) making. When assessments and feedback do not inform

22
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

instruction or when they are not given to the students in a timely manner, learning cannot change
because students do not know what to do differently. This lack of knowledge about what to
improve can make some learners seem “perseverative,” careless, or unmotivated. For these
learners all of the time, and for most learners some of the time, it is important to ensure that
options can be customized to provide feedback that is more explicit, timely, informative, and
accessible. Especially important is providing “formative” feedback that allows learners to monitor
their own progress effectively and to use that information to guide their own effort and practice.
● Ask questions to guide self-monitoring and reflection
● Show representations of progress (e.g., before and after photos, graphs and charts showing
progress over time, process portfolios)
● Prompt learners to identify the type of feedback or advice that they are seeking
● Use templates that guide self-reflection on quality and completeness
● Provide differentiated models of self-assessment strategies (e.g., role-playing, video
reviews, peer feedback)
● Use of assessment checklists, scoring rubrics, and multiple examples of annotated student
work/performance examples

Research Evidence
UDL is based upon the most widely replicated finding in educational research: learners are highly
variable in their response to instruction. In virtually every report of research on instruction or
intervention, individual differences are not only evident in the results; they are prominent.
However, these individual differences are usually treated as sources of annoying error variance as
distractions from the more important “main effects.” UDL, on the other hand, treats these
individual differences as an equally important focus of attention. In fact, when viewed through the
UDL framework these findings are fundamental to understanding and designing effective
instruction. The research that supports UDL falls into four categories: foundational research of
UDL, research on the UDL principles, research on promising practices, and research on
implementation of UDL.

Foundational Research on UDL

UDL draws from a variety of research including the fields of neuroscience, the learning sciences,
and cognitive psychology. It is deeply rooted in concepts such as the Zone of Proximal
Development, scaffolding, mentors, and modeling, as well as the foundational works of Piaget;
Vygotsky; Bruner, Ross, and Wood; and Bloom, who espoused similar principles for understanding
individual differences and the pedagogies required for addressing them. For example, Vygotsky
emphasized one of the key points of UDL curricula—the importance of graduated “scaffolds”.
These are important to the novice, but that can be gradually removed as the individual acquires
expertise. Scaffolding with graduated release is a practice that is as old as human culture and is
relevant to learning in almost any domain, from learning to walk or ride a bike “unaided” to the
long apprenticeships of neurosurgery or aircraft flying.

23
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Research on the Principles of UDL

The research basis for the general principles of UDL is also grounded in modern neuroscience. The
three basic principles are built upon the knowledge that our learning brains are composed of three
different networks, recognition, strategic, and affective. The Guidelines align these three
networks with the three principles (recognition to representation, strategic to action and
expression, and affective to engagement). This empirical base in neuroscience provides a solid
foundation for understanding how the learning brain intersects with effective instruction. This
alignment is further extended and clarified by the guidelines and checkpoints.

Promising Practices Research

Promising lines of research include work identifying the specific practices that are critical to
meeting the challenge of individual differences—research that has been amassed over decades
and by many different researchers. These studies are labeled as “promising” because they appear
to fit within the UDL framework, but they have not been tested in a UDL environment or using the
framework. It is important that these practices are studied within a UDL environment for them to
be considered effective UDL practices. This is an area in which we greatly encourage contributions
from the field.

Implementation Research
Fourth, there is research on specific applications of UDL within learning environments, including
conditions necessary for implementation, common barriers, and lessons from the field. This new
area of research is in its early stages but will take a more prominent place as full-scale curricular
applications and system-wide implementations are developed. It should be noted that this is
another area in which we greatly encourage contributions from the research field.

Research Evidence by Checkpoint

Explore the research used to develop each UDL Guidelines Checkpoint.

Engagement Research

7.1: Optimize individual choice and autonomy

The majority of the experimental studies are focused on the benefits of providing students with
choices in the learning environment. Options in materials, tools, content, format, etc. all have been
shown to increase student motivation and engagement. Other studies focus more specifically
upon the importance of providing students with greater autonomy and control in order to develop
a sense of ownership for their own learning. The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide
more classroom-based perspectives on the advantages of embedding student choice and
autonomy into curricula.

7.1 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Amabile, T. M., & Gitomer, J. (1984). Children's artistic creativity: Effects of choice in task
materials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 209-215.

24
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-
enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students" engagement in schoolwork.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261-278.

Bennett, D. E., Zentall, S. S., French, B. F., & Giorgetti-Borucki, K. (2006). The effects of computer-
administered choice on students with and without characteristics of attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity disorder. Behavioral Disorders, 31(2), 189-203.

Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children's preference for challenge: The role of
perceived competence and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 134-141.

Catlin, K. S., Lewan, G. J., & Perignon, B. J. (1999). Increasing student engagement through goal-
setting, cooperative learning & student choice. (Master's Action Research Project, Saint Xavier
University and IRI/SkyLight).

Cavazos-Kottke, S. (2006). Five readers browsing: The reading interests of talented middle school
boys. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 132-147.

Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial
effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4),
715-730.

Cosden, M., Gannon, C., & Haring, T. G. (1995). Teacher-control versus student-control over
choice of task and reinforcement for students with severe behavior problems. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 5(1), 11-27.

Earley, P. C. (1985). Influence of information choice and task complexity upon goal acceptance,
performance and personal goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 481-491.

Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A
phenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 634-645.

Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader
engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93-114.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and
individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890-898.

Guthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading. Educational
Psychologist, 32(2), 95-105.

Hannafin, R. D., & Sullivan, H. J. (1996). Preferences and learner control over amount of
instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 162-173.

25
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995-1006.

Kern, L., Bambara, L., & Fogt, J. (2002). Class-wide curricular modification to improve the behavior
of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 27(4), 317-326.

Laurillard, D. (1987). Computers and the emancipation of students: Giving control to the learner.
Instructional Science, 16(1), 3-18.

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When
presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),
187-198.

Passig, D., & Levin, H. (1999). Gender interest differences with multimedia learning interfaces.
Computers in Human Behavior, 15(2), 173-183.

Passig, D., & Levin, H. (2000). Gender preferences for multimedia interfaces. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 16(1), 64-71.

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and
related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270-300.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by
increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147-169.

Riding, R. J., & Watts, M. (1997). The effect of cognitive style on the preferred format of
instructional material. Educational Psychology, 17(1), 179-183.

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Reisetter, M. F. (1998). The role of choice in reader engagement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 705-714.

Shogren, K. A., Faggella-Luby, M. N., Bae, S.J., & Wehmeyer, M.L. (2004). The effect of choice-
making as an intervention for problem behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 6(4), 228-237.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher
behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4),
571-581.

Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences and the
development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
63(2-3), i-vi, 1-220.

Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology. (pp. 85-113). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.

26
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Stipek, D. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement. Review
of Educational Research, 51(1), 101-137.

Sweet, A. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. M. (1998). Teacher perceptions and student reading
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 210-223.

Tafarodi, R. W., Mehranvar, S., Panton, R. L., & Milne, A. B. (2002). Putting oneself in the task:
Choice, personalization, and confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 648-658.

Tafarodi, R. W., Milne, A. B., & Smith, A. J. (1999). The confidence of choice: Evidence for an
augmentation effect on self-perceived performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
25(11), 1405-1416.

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children's motivation for
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410-441.

Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement in an
urban middle school. Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 81-101.

Wang, M. C., & Stiles, B. (1976). An investigation of children's concept of self-responsibility for
their school learning. American Educational Research Journal, 13(3), 159-179.

Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination
for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(3), 443-446.

7.1 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Beane, J. A. (1990). Affect in the curriculum: Toward democracy, dignity, and diversity. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87-98.

D'Amico, J. J. (1980). Reviving student participation. Educational Leadership, 38(1), 44-46.

Deci, E. L. (1991). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination

theory perspective. In A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and
development (pp. 43-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum.

27
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-
determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 325-346.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New
York: The Macmillan Company.

Edwards, C. (1998). Partner, nurturer, and guide: The role of the teacher. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini
& G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children. the reggio emilia approach - advanced
reflections (2nd ed., pp. 179-198). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an
engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 59.

Guthrie, J. T., & Cox, K. E. (2001). Classroom conditions for motivation and engagement in reading.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 283-302.

Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1997). Characteristics of classrooms that promote motivations and
strategies for learning. In J. T. Guthrie, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers
through integrated instruction (pp. 128-148). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook for reading research (pp. 403-422). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Kamii, C. (1991). Toward autonomy: The importance of critical thinking and choice making. School
Psychology Review, 20(3), 382-388.

Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children: Why and how to let students decide. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(1),
8-21.

Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in language learning. ELT Journal, 52(4), 282-290.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Researched-
based strategies for increasing student achievement. Virginia: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Power, B. M., Wilhelm, J. D., & Chandler, K. (1997). Reading Stephen King: Issues of censorship,
student choice, and popular literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Rankin, J., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the
instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145-160.

28
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their
students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225-236.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Shevin, M., & Klein, N. K. (2004). The importance of choice-making skills for students with severe
disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(3), 161-168.

Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the
classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational
Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.

Stipek, D. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement. Review
of Educational Research, 51(1), 101.

Suarez, D. (2007). When students choose the challenge. Educational Leadership, 65(3), 60-65.

Williams, S. (1998). An organizational model of choice: A theoretical analysis differentiating

choice, personal control, and self-determination. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 124(4), 465-491.

7.2: Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity

The experimental and quantitative evidence gathered here primarily focuses upon the use of
“anchored instruction” and other techniques to enhance relevance in order to increase student
engagement and achievement. These studies illustrate the power of connecting new content to
relevant, “real-life” contexts. The scholarly reviews and expert opinions provide a more classroom-
based perspective on anchored instruction as well as provide opinions regarding the importance
of embedding the modern technology that students use in their day-to-day lives into the
classroom.

7.2 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-
enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students' engagement in schoolwork.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261-278.

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children's motivation for reading and their relations
to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452-477.

Bottge, B. A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex,
authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children,
59(6), 556-566.

29
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Bottge, B. A., & Heinrichs, M. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for
students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 186-
200.

Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Serlin, R. C., & Hung, Y. H. (2007). Shrinking achievement differences with
anchored math problems: Challenges and possibilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 31-
49.

Condry, J. (1977). Enemies of exploration: Self-initiated versus other-initiated learning. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 35(7), 159-177.

Etheris, A. I. (2004). Computer-supported collaborative problem solving and anchored instruction

in a mathematics classroom: An exploratory study. International Journal of Learning Technology,
1(1), 16-39.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., Courey, S. J., Hamlett, C. L., Sones, E. M., et al. (2006). Teaching
third graders about real-life mathematical problem solving: A randomized controlled study. The
Elementary School Journal, 106(4), 293-311.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning
disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(3), 162-170.

Guthrie, J. T., McGough, K., Bennett, L., & Rice, M. E. (1996). Concept-oriented reading instruction:
An integrated curriculum to develop motivations and strategies for reading. In L. Baker, P.
Afflerbach & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (pp.
165-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Langone, J., Malone, D. M., & Clinton, G. N. (1999). The effects of technology-enhanced anchored
instruction on the knowledge of preservice special educators. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 22(2), 85-96.

Leonard, J., Davis, J. E., & Sidler, J. L. (2005). Cultural relevance and computer-assisted instruction.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 263-285.

Lepper, M. R., & Cordova, D. I. (1992). A desire to be taught: Instructional consequences of

intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16(3), 187-208.

Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of
speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-425.

Mechling, L. (2005). The effect of instructor-created video programs to teach students with
disabilities: A literature review. TAM Board Members, 20(2), 25-36.

Nagy, W. E. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233-253.

30
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Okolo, C. M. (1992). The effect of computer-assisted instruction format and initial attitude on the
arithmetic facts proficiency and continuing motivation of students with learning disabilities.
Exceptionality, 3(4), 195-211.

Parker, L. E., & Lepper, M. R. (1992). Effects of fantasy contexts on children's learning and
motivation: Making learning more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 625-633.

Rieth, H. J., Bryant, D. P., Kinzer, C. K., Colburn, L. K., Hur, S. J., & Hartman, P. (2003). An analysis of
the impact of anchored instruction on teaching and learning activities in two ninth-grade language
arts classes. Remedial and Special Education, 24(3), 173-184.

Schuh, K. L., & Farrell, C. A. (2006). Student effort, media preference, and writing quality when
using print and electronic resources in expository writing. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 35(1), 61-81.

Shyu, H. Y. (1997). Anchored instruction for Chinese students: Enhancing attitudes toward
mathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(1), 55-62.

Shyu, H. Y. (1999). Effects of media attributes in anchored instruction. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 21(2), 119-139.

Shyu, H. Y. C. (2000). Using video-based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan's

experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.

Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology (pp. 85-113). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.

Sweet, A. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Ng, M. M. (1998). Teacher perceptions and student reading
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 210-223.

Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement in an
urban middle school. Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 81-101.

Vye, N. J. (1990). The effects of anchored instruction for teaching social studies: Enhancing
comprehension of setting information. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Boston, MA.

7.2 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Astleitner, H., & Wiesner, C. (2004). An integrated model of multimedia learning and motivation.
Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 13(1), 3-21.

Baart, N. (2002). Saying it "more intensely": Using sensory experience to teach poetry writing.
English Journal, 91(3), 98-103.

31
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest
Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86-107.

Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87-98.

Blachowicz, C. L., & Fisher, P. J. (2007). Best practices in vocabulary instruction. In L.B. Gambrell,
L.M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (pp. 178-203). New York:
Guilford Publications, Inc..

Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990).
Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds.),
Cognition, Education, and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1994). The concept anchoring routine. Lawrence,
Kansas: Edge Enterprises, Inc.

Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., Bulgren, J., Lenz, K., Jantzen, J., Adams, G., et al. (2001). Making learning
easier: Connecting new knowledge to things students already know. Teaching Exceptional Children,
33(4), 82-85.

Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and
video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(2), 67-83.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Guthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading. Educational
Psychologist, 32(2), 95-105.

Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an
engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 59.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook for reading research (pp. 403-422). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Heckman, P. E., & Weissglass, J. (1994). Contextualized mathematics instruction: Moving beyond
recent proposals. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 29-33.

Johnson, S. C. (1995). Making a place for music in basic writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 14(2), 31-
37.

32
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Kim, H. S., & Kamil, M. L. (2003). Concept-oriented reading instruction. In A. P. Sweet, & C. E. Snow
(Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 115-140). NY: Guilford Press.

Kinzer, C. K., Gabella, M. S., & Rieth, H. J. (1994). An argument for using multimedia and anchored
instruction to facilitate mildly disabled students' learning of literacy and social studies. Technology
and Disability, 3(2), 117-128.

Kolb, L. (2006). From toy to tool: Audioblogging with cell phones. Learning & Leading with
Technology, 34(3), 16-20.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Powell-Brown, A. (2006). Why can't I just see the movie? Fostering motivation in children who
struggle with reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(2), 84-90.

Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Learning, 63(4), 8-13.

Reinking, D. (2001). Multimedia and engaged reading in a digital world. In L. Verhoeven, & C. Snow
(Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 195-221). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Scott, L. G. (1996). Writing to music. Reading Teacher, 50, 173-174.

Smith, J. L., & Herring, J. D. (1996). Literature alive: Connecting to story through the arts. Reading
Horizons, 37(2), 102-115.

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its
relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and its
relationship to situated cognition revisited. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 52-70.

Xin, F. (1996). Multimedia reading: Using anchored instruction and video technology in vocabulary
lessons. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(2), 45-49.

7.3: Minimize threats and distractions

The following experimental and quantitative evidence illustrates the importance of creating
learning environments that vary in their perceived threats and distractions in order to increase
student engagement and achievement. A majority of studies focus upon the advantage of positive
behavior support as a way to deter behavior that distracts from learning. Other studies
investigate the benefits of extrinsic rewards to develop intrinsic motivation. Finally, other articles
examine the impact of music, noise, and unfamiliar environments and school personnel upon
student learning. The scholarly reviews and expert opinions focus primarily upon positive

33
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

behavior support and the importance of creating non-threatening educational settings for
students.

7.3 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (2006). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: Resolving the controversy.
Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe. In A. J.
Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 527-547). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Cassidy, G. (2007). The effect of background music and background noise on the task performance
of introverts and extraverts. Psychology of Music, 35(3), 517-537.

Dalla Bella, S., Perets, I., Rousseau, L., & Gosselin, N. (2001). A developmental study of the affective
value of tempo and mode in music. Cognition, 80(3), B1-B10.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.

Deci, E. L. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once
again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27.

Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining
children's self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5),
916-924.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3),
300-319.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and
thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313-332.

Fuchs, D. (1985). The effect of examiners' personal familiarity and professional experience on
handicapped children's test performance. Journal of Educational Research, 78(3), 141-146.

Fuchs, D. (1987). Effects of examiner familiarity on LD and MR students' language performance.

Remedial and Special Education (RASE), 8(4), 47-52.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1986). Test procedure bias: A meta-analysis of examiner familiarity
effects. Review of Educational Research, 56(2), 243-262.

34
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1989). Effects of examiner familiarity on Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic
children: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 55(4), 303-308.

Fuchs, D., Zern, D. S., & Fuchs, L. S. (1983). A microanalysis of participant behavior in familiar and
unfamiliar test conditions. Exceptional Children, 50(1), 75-77.

Furnham, A., & Strbac, L. (2002). Music is as distracting as noise: The differential distraction of
background music and noise on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts.
Ergonomics, 45(3), 203-217.

Hickey, D., & McCaslin, M. (2001). A comparative, sociocultural analysis of context and motivation.
In S. Volet, & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in context: Theoretical advances and methodological
implications (pp. 33-55). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Hutchinson, M., & Gul, F. A. (1997). The interactive effects of extroversion/introversion traits and
collectivism/individualism cultural beliefs on student group learning preferences. Journal of
Accounting Education, 15(1), 95-107.

Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. R. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of
affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10.

Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349-366.

Kincaid, D., Knoster, T., Harrower, J. K., Shannon, P., & Bustamante, S. (2002). Measuring the
impact of positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 4(2), 109-117.

Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Sunderland, M. (2002). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support
intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 4(3), 182-188.

Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of
speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-425.

McCurdy, B. L., Mannella, M. C., & Eldridge, N. (2003). Positive behavior support in urban schools:
Can we prevent the escalation of antisocial behavior. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions,
5(3), 158-170.

Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Jost, J. T. (2007). Threatened by the
unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating
partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 698-716.

Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive
behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior support. Education and
Treatment of Children, 24(4), 448-479.

35
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for
minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117-125.

Nelson, J. R., Martella, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. (2002). Maximizing student learning: The
effects of a comprehensive school-based program for preventing problem behaviors. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral, 10(3), 136-148.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2001). Moving from the ESL classroom into the mainstream: An investigation
of English language anxiety in Mexican girls. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1/2), 31-38.

Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences and the
development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
63(2-3), i-vi, 1-220.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.

Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology. (pp. 85-113). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.

Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-
school students' attitude toward mathematics and mathematics instruction using a computer-
based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(2), 165-195.

Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research. Review
of Educational Research, 49(4), 577-610.

Wiersma, U. J. C. (1992). The effects of extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 101-114.

Wiest, L. R. (2002). Aspects of word-problem context that influence children's problem-solving

performance. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 24(2), 38-52.

Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking
social and emotional learning to school success. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Building Academic Success on Social and Emotional Learning: What Does the Research
Say? (pp. 3-22). New York: Teachers College Press.

7.3 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Cameron, J. (2001). Negative effects of reward on intrinsic motivation-A limited phenomenon:
Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001). Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 29-42.

36
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on
intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24, 1-44.

Corey, R. (1995). Words from music: How Mozart and mangione inspire writers. Quarterly of the
National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 17(3), 26-29.

Darch, C. B., & Kameenui, E. J. (2003). Instructional classroom management: A proactive approach to
behavior management (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Deci, E. L. (2001). The pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: Response to
Cameron (2001). Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 43-51.

Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336-353.

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003).
Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social,
emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6/7), 466-474.

Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2001). "Data" need not be a four-letter word: Using data to improve
schoolwide discipline. Beyond Behavior, 11(1), 20-22.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Horner, H. F. (2000). A school-wide approach to student discipline. The
School Administrator, 2(57), 20-23.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Todd, A. W. (2001). Teaching school-wide behavioral
expectations. Report on Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 1(4), 77-79.

Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L. K., Sugai, G., & Boland, J. B. (2004). The school-
wide evaluation tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior
support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 3-12.

Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2000). School-wide behavior support: An emerging initiative. Journal of
Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2(4), 231-233.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive behavior
support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools. In L. Bambara, & L. Kern (Eds.),
Individualized support for students with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior plans (pp. 359-
390). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mcleskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2007). Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3), 162-168.

Meyer, A. (1983). Origins and prevention of emotional disturbances among learning disabled
children. Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 3(2), 59-70.

37
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Netzel, D., & Eber, L. (2003). Shifting from reactive & proactive discipline in an urban school
district: A change in focus through PBIS. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports,
5(2), 67-71.

Scott, T. M., & Barrett, S. B. (2004). Using staff and student time engaged in disciplinary
procedures to evaluate the impact of school-wide PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
6(1), 21-28.

Scott, L. G. (1996). Writing to music. Reading Teacher, 50, 173-174.

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Gresham, F. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. R.
Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II:
Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 315-350). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

8.1: Heighten salience of goals and objectives

Maintaining engagement over the course of any sustained lesson or project can be difficult for
many learners. Research shows the importance of incorporating periodic or persistent
“reminders” of both the goal and its value in order to support students in sustaining effort and
concentration in the face of attractive distracters. The majority of the experimental studies listed
here evaluate the effectiveness of various specific techniques for doing so: persistent display
(concrete or symbolic) of the goal, prompts or scaffolds for visualizing desired outcomes, and
rubrics to explicitly state goals and objectives. The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide
more classroom-based perspectives on providing options to heighten salience of goals and
objectives. Many of the articles listed here focus upon the use of rubrics in the classroom and offer
an array of practical examples.

8.1 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Aboderin, A. O., & Thomas, M. (1996). An evaluation of the influence of behavioural objectives on
Nigerian students' cognitive achievement in biology. Research in Science & Technological Education,
14(2), 193-204.

Andrade, H. G. (1999, April). The role of instructional rubrics and self-assessment in learning to write: A
smorgasbord of findings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.

Barker, D., & Hapkiewicz, W. G. (1979). The effects of behavioral objectives on relevant and
incidental learning at two levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Educational Research, 72(6), 334-
339.

38
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Blaney, J. P., & McKie, D. (1969). Knowledge of conference objectives and effect upon learning.
Adult Education Quarterly, 19(2), 98-105.

Dales, G. T. (1970). Effect of precise objectives upon student achievement in health education.
Journal of Experimental Education, 39(2), 20-23.

Duchastel, P. C., & Merrill, P. F. (1973). The effects of behavioral objectives on learning: A review
of empirical studies. Review of Educational Research, 43(1), 53-69.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Rackliffe, G. (1986). How teachers' instructional talk influences
students' understanding of lesson content. The Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 3-16.

Hafner, J. C., & Hafner, P. M. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: An
empirical study of student peer-group rating. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12),
1509-1528.

Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests, behavioral
objectives, overviews and advance organizers. Review of Educational Research, 46(2), 239-265.

McLeod, P. J., Berdugo, G., & Meagher, T. W. (1998). Utility of educational objectives: A study of
learner and program director perceptions of their value in clinical courses. Teaching and Learning in
Medicine, 10(3), 152-157.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback when
using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 27(4), 309-323.

Rothkopf, E. Z., & Kaplan, R. (1972). Exploration of the effect of density and specificity of
instructional objectives on learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(4), 295-302.

Schuck, R. F. (1971). The effects of set induction upon pupil achievement, retention, and
assessment of effective teaching in a unit on respiration in the BSCS curricula. Science Education,
55(3), 403-415.

Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (1999). Goal imagery: Bridging the gap between implicit
motives and explicit goals. Journal of Personality, 67(1), 1-38.

Skillings, M. J., & Ferrell, R. (2000). Student-generated rubrics: Bringing students into the
assessment process. The Reading Teacher, 53(6), 452-455.

Sweller, J., & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specificity on means-ends analysis and learning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8(5), 463-474.

Wittrock, M. C. (1962). Set applied to student teaching. Human Learning in the School: Readings in
Educational Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(4), 175-180.

39
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

8.1 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Ainsworth, L., & Christinson, J. (1998). Student generated rubrics: An assessment model to help all
students succeed. Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Learning.

Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical
Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 2-11.

Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership,
57(5), 13-18.

Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching,
53(1), 27-30.

Arter, J. A., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for
assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Boston, C. (2002). Understanding scoring rubrics: A guide for teachers. College Park, Maryland: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.

Clauson, D. J. (1998). How rubrics become grades. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 4(2),
118-119.

Coray, G. (2000). Rubrics made simple. Science Scope, 23(6), 38-40.

Custer, R. L. (1996). Rubrics: An authentic assessment tool for technology education. Technology
Teacher, 55(4), 27-37.

Eisner, E. W. (1967). Instructional and expressive educational objectives: Their formulation and
use in curriculum. In W. J. Popham (Ed.), Instructional objectives (pp. 1-31). Chicago: Rand Mc Nally.

Eppink, J. A. (2002). Student-created rubrics: An idea that works. Teaching Music, 9(4), 28-32.

Farnham-Diggory, S. (1972). Cognitive processes in education: A psychological preparation for teaching

and curriculum development. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1982). Developing goals and objectives for educational programs.
Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Goodrich, H. (1997). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(5), 14-17.

Groeber, J. F. (2006). Designing and using rubrics for reading and language arts, K-6 (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Guthrie, J. T. (2000). Contexts for engagement and motivation in reading. Reading Online 4(8).
Retrieved August 24, 2007, from [Link]

40
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Hall, E. W., & Salmon, S. J. (2003). Chocolate chip cookies and rubrics: Helping students
understand rubrics in inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 8-11.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for
the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.

Huffman, E. S. (1998). Authentic rubrics. Art Education, 51(1), 64-68.

Jackson, C. W., & Larkin, M. J. (2002). Rubric: Teaching students to use grading rubrics. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 35(1), 40-45.

Jensen, K. (1995). Effective rubric design: Making the most of this powerful assessment tool.
Science Teacher, 62(5), 34-37.

Kohn, A. (2006). The trouble with rubrics. English Journal, 95(4), 12-15.

Lazear, D. (1998). The rubrics way: Using multiple intelligences to assess understanding. Tucson, AZ:
Zephyr Press.

Leonhardt, A. (2005). Using rubrics as an assessment tool in your classroom. General Music Today,
19(1), 10-16.

Liu, K. (1995). Rubrics revisited: Allowing students to assume responsibility for the quality of their
work. Science Teacher, 62(7), 49-51.

Loveland, T. R. (2005). Writing standards-based rubrics for technology education classrooms: The
use of rubrics goes beyond the simple need for objective grading in classrooms. Technology
Teacher, 4(2), 19-23.

Lynch, V. (1983). An introduction to systematic instruction. BC Journal of Special Education, 7(1), 1-

13.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research
and Evaluation, 7(25), 1-10.

Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(3). Retrieved May 22, 2009, from [Link]

Phillip, C. (2002). Clear expectations: Rubrics and scoring guides. Knowledge Quest, 31(2), 26-27.

Popham, W. J. (1997). What's wrong--and what's right--with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55(2),
72-75.

41
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Reddin, W. J. (1971). Effective management by objectives. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ross-Fisher, R. L. (2005). Developing effective success rubrics. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(3), 131-
135.

Schirmer, B. R., & Bailey, J. (2000). Writing assessment rubric: An instructional approach with
struggling writers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(1), 52-58.

Spandel, V. (2006). In defense of rubrics. English Journal, 96(1), 19-22.

Tuttle, H. G. (1996). The multimedia report: Rubrics--keys to improving multimedia presentations.

MultiMedia Schools, 3(1), 30-33.

Wang, J., & Rairigh, R. M. (2006). Using instructional rubrics in physical education. Teaching
Elementary Physical Education, 17(3), 37-41.

Wyngaard, S., & Gehrke, R. (1996). Responding to audience: Using rubrics to teach and assess
writing. English Journal, 85(6), 67-70.

Yoshina, J. M., & Harada, V. H. (2007). Involving students in learning through rubrics. Library Media
Connection, 25(5), 10-14.

8.2: Vary demands and resources to optimize challenge

There is incredible amount of variability among students in terms of how they perceive and
respond to challenging tasks. Some students are motivated by highly challenging or highly risky
tasks, while others are more motivated by more predictable, “safer” tasks that are well within their
capability. Providing a range of challenges, and a range of possible supports, allows all students to
find objectives that are optimally motivating. The experimental research listed here explores the
effects of optimizing resources and demands, and teaching within a student’s Zone of Proximal
Development. Many of the scholarly reviews and expert opinions offer a more classroom-based
perspective on challenge and threat appraisals, while Vygotsky’s work offers a theoretical
perspective on the importance of providing options to vary the level of challenge and support.

8.2 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social" facilitation" as challenge
and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 68-77.

Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children's preference for challenge: The role of
perceived competence and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 134-141.

Craig, S. D., Graesser, A. C., Sullins, J., & Gholson, B. (2004). Affect and learning: An exploratory
look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 241-250.

42
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Donovan, C. A., Smolkin, L. B., & Lomax, R. G. (2000). Beyond the independent-level text:
Considering the reader? Text match in first graders' self-selections during recreational reading.
Reading Psychology, 21(4), 309-333.

Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal–performance
relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(2), 667-682.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a
stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992-1003.

Mak, A. S., Blewitt, K., & Heaven, P. C. L. (2004). Gender and personality influences in adolescent
threat and challenge appraisals and depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences,
36(6), 1483-1496.

Marino, M., Coyne, M., & Dunn, M. (2010). The effect of technology-based altered readability
levels on struggling readers science comprehension. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 29(1), 31-49.

Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (2000). Middle school students’ perceptions, persistence, and
performance in mathematical problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(3), 215-227.

Oermann, M. H., & Standfest, K. M. (1997). Differences in stress and challenge in clinical practice
among ADN and BSN students in varying clinical courses. The Journal of Nursing Education, 36(5),
228-233.

Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-

learner collaborative interaction in the Zone of Proximal Development. Issues in Applied Linguistics,
6(2), 93-121.

Pagana, K. D. (1990). The relationship of hardiness and social support to student appraisal of
stress in an initial clinical nursing situation. The Journal of Nursing Education, 29(6), 255-261.

Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a Zone of Proximal
Development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620-627.

Stahl, E., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2006). Task complexity, epistemological beliefs and
metacognitive calibration: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4),
319-338.

Tang, S. Y. F. (2003). Challenge and support: The dynamics of student teachers’ professional
learning in the field experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 483-498.

43
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Cognitive and physiological antecedents
of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 63-72.

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. (1993). Subjective, physiological, and
behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65(2), 248-260.

Vick, S. B., Seery, M. D., Blascovich, J., & Weisbuch, M. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype
activation on challenge and threat motivational states. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
44(3), 624-630.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

8.2 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (2000). Challenge and threat appraisals: The role of affective cues.
In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 59-82). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2002). Leveled text: The good news and the bad news. Reading
Teacher, 55(5), 438-441.

Coyne, M. D., Kame'enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2004). Improving beginning reading instruction
and intervention for students with LD: Reconciling" all" with" each". Journal of Learning Disabilities,
37(3), 231.

Hedegaard, M. (1996). The Zone of Proximal Development as basis for instruction. In H. Daniels
(Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 171–195). London: Routledge.

Onosko, J. J., & Jorgenson, C. M. (1998). Unit and lesson planning in the inclusive classroom:
Maximizing learning opportunities for all students. In C. M. Jorgenson (Ed.), Restructuring high
schools for all students: Taking inclusion to the next level (pp. 71-105). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.

Suarez, D. (2007). When students choose the challenge. Educational Leadership, 65(3), 60-65.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1964). Thought and language. Annals of Dyslexia, 14(1), 97-98.

8.3: Foster collaboration and community

For some, but not all, students, the option of working collaboratively with other students is an
effective way to sustain engagement in protracted projects and activities. The distribution of

44
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

mentoring through peers can greatly increase the opportunities for one-on-one support. The
experimental and quantitative research presented here supports the effectiveness of strategies
such as cooperative learning groups with scaffolded roles and responsibilities, school-wide
programs of positive behavior support with differentiated objectives and supports, and peer
tutoring and support. The scholarly reviews and expert opinions provide a more classroom-based
perspective on the benefits of providing options to foster collaboration and communication.

8.3 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Bahr, M. W., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Fernstrom, P., & Stecker, P. M. (1993). Reflections on
"Effectiveness of student versus teacher monitoring during prereferral intervention."
Exceptionality, 4(1), 55-58.

Bentz, J. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1996). Improving peers’ helping behavior to students with learning
disabilities during mathematics peer tutoring. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(4), 202-215.

Calhoon, M. B., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and
curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 235-245.

Catlin, K. S., Lewan, G. J., & Perignon, B. J. (1999). Increasing student engagement through goal-
setting, cooperative learning & student choice. Unpublished master's action research project, St.
Xavier University and IRI/SkyLight, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED433100) Retrieved July 16, 2009, from ERIC database.

Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1993). Collaboration between children learning to write: Can novices be
masters? Cognition & Instruction, 10(4), 281-333.

Dion, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Differential effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on
students’ social preference and friendship making. Behavioral Disorders, 30(4), 421-429.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Yen, L., McMaster, K., Svenson, E., Yang, N., et al. (2001). Developing first-
grade reading fluency through peer mediation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(2), 90-93.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word recognition,
fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 34-
44.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Burish, P. (2000). Peer-assisted learning strategies: An evidence-based
practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(2), 85-91.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Martinez, E. A. (2002). Preliminary evidence on the social
standing of students with learning disabilities in PALS and no-PALS classrooms. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(4), 205-215.

45
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies:
Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1),
174.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Svenson, E., Yen, L., Al Otaiba, S., et al. (2001). Peer-assisted
learning strategies in reading: Extensions for kindergarten, first grade, and high school. Remedial
and Special Education, 22(1), 15-21.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Bentz, J., Phillips, N. B., & Hamlett, C. L. (1994). The nature of student
interactions during peer tutoring with and without prior training and experience. American
Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 75-103.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing
students' helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical
explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 97(3), 223-249.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergartners' mathematical development:
Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 495-510.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1998). Comparisons among
individual and cooperative performance assessments and other measures of mathematics
competence. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 23-51.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on high
school students with serious reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5), 309-318.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., & Allen, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies in
reading with and without training in elaborated help giving. The Elementary School Journal, 99(3),
201-219.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., Karns, K., Calhoon, M. B., Hamlett, C. L., et al. (2000). Effects of
workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(3), 183-212.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Phillips, N. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1995). Acquisition and transfer
effects of classwide peer-assisted learning strategies in mathematics for students with varying
learning histories. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 604-620.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Yazdian, L., & Powell, S. R. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children's
mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31(4),
569-584.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning
disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(3), 162-170.

46
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Journal Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation
of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer
support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295-340.

Hock, M. F., Pulvers, K. A., & Deshler, D. D. (2001). The effects of an after-school tutoring program
on the academic performance of at-risk students and students with LD. Remedial and Special
Education, 22(3), 172-186.

Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 89(1), 47-62.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In
R. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. Posavac, F. Bryant & Y. e. a. Suzrez-Balcazar (Eds.), Theory and
research on small groups: Social psychological applications to social issues (pp. 9-36). New York:
Plenum Press.

Kobayashi, M. (2003). The role of peer support in ESL students' accomplishment of oral academic
tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 59(3), 337-
369.

Locke, W. R., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Effects of peer-mediated reading instruction on the on-task
behavior and social interaction of children with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 3(2), 92-99.

MacArthur, C. A. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education

classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(4), 201-210.

Mathes, P., Howard, J., Allen, S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer-assisted learning strategies for first-
grade readers: Responding to the needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1),
62-94.

Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1993). Peer-mediated reading instruction in special education
resource rooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(4), 233-243.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The
promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(1), 5-25.

McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement
of students with learning disabilities: An update of tateyama-sniezek's review. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 17(2), 107-117.

47
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-

learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics,
6(2), 93-121.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback when
using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 27(4), 309-323.

Phillips, N. B. (1993). Combining classwide curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring to

help general educators provide adaptive education. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(3),
148-156.

Phillips, N. B., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1994). Effects of classwide curriculum-based measurement
and peer tutoring: A collaborative researcher-practitioner interview study. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 27(7), 420-434.

Riddle, E. M. (1995). Communication through multimedia in an elementary classroom. East Lansing,

MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED384346) Retrieved July 16, 2009, from ERIC database.

Rohrbeck, C. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted
learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(2), 240-257.

Simmons, D. C. (1994). Importance of instructional complexity and role reciprocity to classwide

peer tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(4), 203-212.

Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching
and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-performing students
in regular classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 95(5), 387-408.

Stenhoff, D., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2007). A review of the effects of peer tutoring on students
with mild disabilities in secondary settings. Council for Exceptional Children, 74(1), 8-30.

Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students’
achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321-351.

Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled
students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76-103.

Topping, K. J., Peter, C., Stephen, P., & Whale, M. (2004). Cross-age peer tutoring of science in the
primary school: Influence on scientific language and thinking. Educational Psychology, 24(1), 57-75.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

48
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Xin, J. F. (1999). Computer-assisted cooperative learning in integrated classrooms for students

with and without disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 1(1), 61-78.

8.3 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Agran, M., King-Sears, M. E., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Copeland, S. R. (2003). Teachers’ guide to inclusive
practices: Student directed learning. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2000). Building student capacity to work productively during peer-
assisted reading activities. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for
meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades. (pp. 95–115). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Guthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading. Educational
Psychologist, 32(2), 95-105.

Hall, T. E., & Stegila, A. (2003). Peer-mediated instruction and intervention. Retrieved on May 27,
2009, from [Link]
intervention.

Hall, T. E., Wolfe, P. S., & Bollig, A. A. (2003). The home-to-school notebook: An effective
communication strategy for students with severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(2),
68-73.

Ikan, P. A., & Conderman, G. (1996). Lights, camera, action!: A language arts activity for middle
school students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(4), 69-71.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

MacArthur, C. (1994). Peers + word processing + strategies= A powerful combination for revising
student writing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 24-29.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Researched-
based strategies for increasing student achievement. Virginia: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. Reading comprehension instruction for secondary
students: Challenges for struggling readers and teachers. Reading Disability Quarterly, 26(1), 103-
116.

Onosko, J. J., & Jorgenson, C. M. (1998). Unit and lesson planning in the inclusive classroom:
Maximizing learning opportunities for all students. In C. M. Jorgenson (Ed.), Restructuring high
schools for all students: Taking inclusion to the next level (pp. 71-105). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.

49
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Powell-Brown, A. (2006). Why can't I just see the movie? Fostering motivation in children who
struggle with reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(2), 84-90.

Robinson, D. R., Schofield, J. W., & Steers-Wentzell1, K. L. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in
math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 327-362.

Saenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language
learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231-248.

Strangman, N. (2002). Collaborative internet projects: An interview with Susan Silverman about
her passion and hobby. Reading Online, 5(6). Retrieved on May 27, 2009, from
[Link]

Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645.

Wright, J., & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Kids in the tutor seat: Building schools’ capacity to help struggling
readers through a cross-age peer-tutoring program. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 99-107.

8.4: Increase mastery-oriented feedback

Feedback that orients students toward mastery and that emphasizes the role of effort and
practice rather than “intelligence” or inherent “ability” is an important factor in guiding students
toward successful long-term habits of mind. The experimental and quantitative evidence listed
here reveals the advantages of strategies such as providing feedback that encourages
perseverance, focusing on development of efficacy and self-awareness, encouraging the use of
specific supports in the face of challenge, and emphasizing individual effort rather than relative
performance. The scholarly reviews and expert opinions offer more classroom-based perspectives
on the importance of providing mastery-oriented feedback to students.

8.4 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-
efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206-1222.

Bangert-Downs, R. L., Kulik, C., Kulick, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effects of
feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict
achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child
Development, 78(1), 246-263.

Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Turner, L. A. (1986). Attributional retraining and the teaching of
strategies. Exceptional Children, 53(2), 130-137.

50
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Butler, R. (2005). Competence assessment, competence, and motivation between early and middle
childhood. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 202-221).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Chapin, M., & Dyck, D. G. (1976). Persistence in children's reading behavior as a function of N
length and attribution retraining. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(5), 511-515.

Craske, M. L. (1988). Learned helplessness, self-worth motivation and attribution retraining for
primary school children. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58 (Pt. 2), 152-164.

Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and
attributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(1), 17-27.

Deci, E. L., & Moller, A. C. (2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for understanding
intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 579-597). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Duchardt, B. A., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1995). A strategic intervention for enabling
students with learning disabilities to identify and change their ineffective beliefs. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 18(3), 186-201.

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia,
PA: Taylor & Francis Group.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.

El-Alayli, A., & Baumgardner, A. (2003). If at first you don't succeed, what makes you try,try again?
effects of implicit theories and ability feedback in a performance-oriented climate. Self & Identity,
2(2), 119-135.

Fowler, J. W., & Peterson, P. L. (1981). Increasing reading persistence and altering attributional
style of learned helpless children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 251-260.

Fyrstén, S., Nurmi, J. E., & Lyytinen, H. (2006). The role of achievement beliefs and behaviours in
spontaneous reading acquisition. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 569-582.

Heyman, G. D., Dweck, C. S., & Cain, K. M. (1992). Young children's vulnerability to self-blame and
helplessness: Relationship to beliefs about goodness. Child Development, 63(2), 401-415.

Horner, S. L., & Gaither, S. M. (2004). Attribution retraining instruction with a second-grade class.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 165-170.

51
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Hughes, C. A., Ruhl, K. L., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). Effects of instruction in an
assignment completion strategy on the homework performance of students with learning
disabilities in general education classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Blackwell
Publishing Limited), 17(1), 1-18.

Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for
contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 835-847.

Kennelly, K. J. (1981). Reinforcement schedules, effort vs. ability attributions, and persistence.
Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los
Angeles, CA.

Kline, F. M., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1991). Development and validation of feedback
routines for instructing students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14(3), 191-
207.

Lackaye, T., Margalit, M., Ziv, O., & Ziman, T. (2006). Comparisons of self-efficacy, mood, effort,
and hope between students with learning disabilities and their non-LD-matched peers. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 111-121.

Lee, J. K., & Lee, W. K. The relationship of e-Learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-
learning environmental quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 32-47.

Linnenbrick, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School
Psychology Review, 31(3), 313-327.

Linnenbrick, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement
and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137.

Loper, A. B. (1984). Accuracy of learning disabled students’ self-prediction of decoding. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 7(2), 172-178.

Meltzer, L., Roditi, B., Houser, R. F., & Perlman, M. (1998). Perceptions of academic strategies and
competence in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(5), 437-451.

Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived

competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2),
203-214.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation
and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33-52.

Okolo, C. M. (1992). The effects of computer-based attribution retraining on the attributions,

persistence, and mathematics computation of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 25(5), 327-334.

52
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical
problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4), 426-443.

Pflaum, S. W., & Pascarella, E. T. (1982). Attribution retraining for learning disabled students:
Some thoughts on the practical implications of the evidence. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(4),
422-426.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and
projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.

Salomon, G. (1984). Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential investment of mental
effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology,
76(4), 647-658.

Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 74(4), 548-556.

Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attribution feedback: Differential effects on self-
efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 848-856.

Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 76(6), 1159-1169.

Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning
disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 201-209.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In A. J.
Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85-104). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy
and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. The Journal of Special
Education, 27(3), 257-276.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role
of social and self-regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement:
Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 34-50). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

Shih, S. (2007). The role of motivational characteristics in taiwanese sixth graders' avoidance of
help seeking in the classroom. Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 473-495.

Stipek, D., & Heidi Gralinski, J. (1996). Children's beliefs about intelligence and school
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 397-407.

53
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology. (pp. 85-113). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.

Stipek, D. J., & Gralinski, J. H. (1991). Gender differences in children's achievement-related beliefs
and emotional responses to success and failure in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(3), 361-371.

Surber, C. F. (1980). The development of reversible operations in judgments of ability, effort, and
performance. Child Development, 51(4), 1018-1029.

Thomas, A., & Pashley, B. (1982). Effects of classroom training on LD students’ task persistence
and attributions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(2), 133–144.

Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and
students' motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3),
211-238.

Yasutake, D. (1996). The effects of combining peer tutoring and attribution training on students'
perceived self-competence. Remedial and Special Education, 17(2), 83-91.

8.4 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Ames, C. A. (1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know. Teachers College Record, 91(3), 409-
421.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational

Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Cimpian, A., Arce, H. M., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect
children's motivation. Psychological Science : A Journal of the American Psychological Society / APS,
18(4), 314-316.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003). Safe and sound: An educational
Leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs. Chicago, IL:
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

Fulk, B. J. M., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1990). Training positive attitudes:" I tried hard and did well!".
Intervention in School and Clinic, 26(2), 79-83.

Guthrie, J. T., & Cox, K. E. (2001). Classroom conditions for motivation and engagement in reading.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 283-302.

54
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of self-worth: A life-span perspective.
In R. J. Sternberg, & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 67-97). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Researched-
based strategies for increasing student achievement. Virginia: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

McTighe, J., & O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning. Educational Leadership,
63(3), 10-17.

Onosko, J. J., & Jorgenson, C. M. (1998). Unit and lesson planning in the inclusive classroom:
Maximizing learning opportunities for all students. In C. M. Jorgenson (Ed.), Restructuring high
schools for all students: Taking inclusion to the next level (pp. 71-105). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.

Vacca, R. T. (2006). They can because they think they can. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 56-59.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of personal competence: Self
regulated learning and practice. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 509-526). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

9.1: Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation

Learning can be affectively inaccessible when success requires students to set personally
motivating goals and expectations, and where there are no options provided for students who
differ in their ability to do so. Goal setting is an essential aspect of self-regulation; setting goals to
avoid frustration, to modulate anxiety, and to set positive expectations are important skills to
learn. Yet, these goals will vary greatly according to individual student needs - some students need
to dampen anxiety to succeed while others may need to elevate it somewhat. The evidence listed
here suggests the effectiveness of explicitly teaching and scaffolding goal-setting strategies and of
empowering students to set their own goals. The scholarly reviews and expert opinions provide a
more classroom-based perspective of the importance of guiding personal goal-setting and
expectations.

9.1 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Agran, M., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S. (2006). Participation of students with moderate
to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effects of the self-determined learning model
of instruction. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(3), 230-241.

55
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Aunola, K., Nurmi, J. E., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2002). Developmental
dynamics of achievement strategies, reading performance, and parental beliefs. Reading Research
Quarterly, 37(3), 310-327.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the
motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1017-1028.

Brewer, M. B., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Emotion and motivation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Butler, D. L. (1997). The roles of goal setting and self-monitoring in students' self-regulated
engagement in tasks. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997).

Catlin, K. S., Lewan, G. J., & Perignon, B. J. (1999). Increasing student engagement through goal-
setting, cooperative learning & student choice. (Master's Action Research Project, Saint Xavier
University and IRI/SkyLight).

Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based

program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the
Schools, 41(5), 537-550.

Earley, P. C. (1985). Influence of information choice and task complexity upon goal acceptance,
performance and personal goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 481-491.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12.

Hannafin, M. J. (1981). Effects of teacher and student goal setting and evaluations on mathematics
achievement and student attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 74(5), 321-326.

Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions. Educational Studies

in Mathematics, 63(2), 165-178.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and
consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the
grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284-1295.

Hole, J. L., & Crozier, W. R. (2007). Dispositional and situational learning goals and children's self-
regulation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 773-786.

Hom, H. L., & Arbuckle, B. (1988). Mood induction effects upon goal setting and performance in
young children. Motivation and Emotion, 12(2), 113-122.

Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 569-581.

56
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Law, Y. K. (2009). The role of attribution beliefs, motivation and strategy use in Chinese fifth-
graders' reading comprehension. Educational Research, 51(1), 77-95.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral
treatment. Confirmation from meta-analysis. The American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181-1209.

Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Preventive Psychology,
5(2), 117-124.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

Lodewyk, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2009). Implications of task structure on self-
regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 1-25.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514-523.

Newman, R. S., & Schwager, M. T. (1995). Students' help seeking during problem solving: Effects of
grade, goal, and prior achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 352-376.

Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-
beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(4), 406-422.

Palmer, S. B., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Promoting self-determination in early elementary school:
Teaching self-regulated problem-solving and goal-setting skills. Remedial and Special Education,
24(2), 115-126.

Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (2005). The conditional and interaction effects of epistemological
beliefs on the self-regulated learning of college students: Motivational strategies. Research in
Higher Education, 46(7), 731-768.

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and
locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5),
792-802.

Ridley, D. S. (1992). Self-regulated learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness

and goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 293-306.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The
mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408-422.

57
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Schneider, W. (1998). Performance prediction in young children: Effects of skill, metacognition

and wishful thinking. Developmental Science, 1(2), 291-297.

Schunk, D. H. (1985). Participation in goal setting: Effects on self-efficacy and skills of learning-
disabled children. Journal of Special Education, 19(3), 307-317.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-382.

Stipek, D. (1984). Young children's performance expectations: Logical analysis or wishful thinking?
In J. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation, (pp. 33-56). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children's beliefs about intelligence and school performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 397-407.

Stipek, D. J., & Gralinski, J. H. (1991). Gender differences in children's achievement-related beliefs
and emotional responses to success and failure in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(3), 361-371.

Stipek, D. J., Roberts, T. A., & Sanborn, M. E. (1984). Preschool-age children's performance
expectations for themselves and another child as a function of the incentive value of success and
the salience of past performance. Child Development 55(6), 1983-1989.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Yeager, D., Bolding, N., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2003). The effects of self-
regulation strategies on goal attainment for students with developmental disabilities in general
education classrooms. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 15(1), 79-91.

Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and
students' motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3),
211-238.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational
Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1996). Self-regulated learning of a motoric skill: The role of goal
setting and self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8(1), 60-75.

9.1 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk, & J.
L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom. (pp. 327-348). Hillsdale, NJ, England:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

58
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Anderson, A. (1997). Learning strategies in physical education: Self-talk, imagery, and goal-setting.
The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(1), 30-35.

Carroll, J., & Christenson, C. N. K. (1995). Teaching and learning about student goal setting in a
fifth-grade classroom. Language Arts, 72(1), 42-49.

Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review.
Annual Reviews in Psychology, 51(1), 171-200.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for
the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works! Englewood
Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Madden, L. E. (1997). Motivating students to learn better through own goal-setting. Education,
117(3), 411-416.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 399-427.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2001). Goal setting and goal striving. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz
(Eds.), Intraindividual processes. Volume 1 of the Blackwell Handbook in Social Psychology. Editors-in-
chief: M. Hewstone & M. Brewer (pp. 329-347). Oxford: Blackwell.

Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions: Developmental trend
or social construction? Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 31-63.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Grolnick, W. S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically
motivated: A theory of internalization and self-regulation in school. In K. Boggiano, & T. Pittman
(Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social development perspective (pp. 167-188). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 25(1), 71-86.

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and
self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.

59
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.

Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

9.2: Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies

Learning can be affectively inaccessible when successful learning requires students to cope with
negative emotions and frustrations and when there are no options for students who have
difficulty in doing so. In order to develop effective self-regulatory skills, students must be exposed
to varied strategies – reminders, models, checklists and so forth – that will help them to identify
the coping mechanisms for managing the emotions that work best for them. The evidence listed
below suggests the effectiveness of strategies such as developing help-seeking strategies,
providing scaffolds and feedback for managing frustration, and building internal controls. The
scholarly reviews and opinions provide a more classroom-based perspective on the importance of
scaffolding students’ coping skills and strategies.

9.2 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Wehmeyer, M., & Hughes, C. (2001). Teaching students to self-regulate
their behavior: The differential effects of student-vs. teacher-delivered reinforcement. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 319-332.

Bong, M. (2008). Effects of parent-child relationships and classroom goal structures on motivation,
help-seeking avoidance, and cheating. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 191-217.

Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation
and performance among junior and senior high-school age students. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 14(2), 153-164.

Brewer, M. B., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Emotion and motivation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Brooks, A., Todd, A. W., Tofflemoyer, S., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Use of functional assessment and a
self-management system to increase academic engagement and work completion. Journal of
Positive Behavior, 53, 144-152.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe. In A. J.
Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 527-547). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based

program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the
Schools, 41(5), 537-550.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning
and achievement. In A. K. Boggiano, & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social
developmental perspective (pp. 3-36). Toronto, ON: Cambridge University Press.

60
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

El-Alayli, A., & Baumgardner, A. (2003). If at first you don't succeed, what makes you try,try again?
Effects of implicit theories and ability feedback in a performance-oriented climate. Self & Identity,
2(2), 119-135.

Evans, S. W., Pelham, W., & Grudberg, M. V. (1994). The efficacy of notetaking to improve behavior
and comprehension of adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptionality,
5(1), 1-17.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a
stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992-1003.

Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions. Educational Studies

in Mathematics, 63(2), 165-178.

Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college students to be self-regulated
learners. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning from teaching to self-
reflective practice (pp. 57-85). New York: Guilford.

Hole, J. L., & Crozier, W. R. (2007). Dispositional and situational learning goals and children's self-
regulation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 773-786.

Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 569-581.

Lancaster, P. E., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The development and validation of an
interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(4), 277-302.

Lee, J. K., & Lee, W. K. (2008). The relationship of e-Learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and
perception of e-learning environmental quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 32-47.

Lizarraga, M. L. S. d. A., Ugarte, M. D., Iriarte, M. D., & Baquedano, M. T. S. d. A. (2003). Immediate
and long-term effects of a cognitive intervention on intelligent, self-regulations, and academic
achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(1), 59-75.

Lodewyk, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2009). Implications of task structure on self-
regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 1-25.

Malmivuori, M. (2006). Affect and self-regulation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 149-
164.

Marchand, G., & Skinner, E. A. (2007). Motivational dynamics of children's academic help-seeking
and concealment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 65-82.

61
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Mercier, J., & Frederiksen, C. H. (2007). Individual differences in graduate students' help-seeking
process in using a computer coach in problem-based learning. Learning & Instruction, 17(2), 184-
203.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodrigiez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science,
244(4907), 933-938.

Newman, R. S. (1998). Students' help seeking during problem solving: Influences of personal and
contextual achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 644-658.

Newman, R. S., & Schwager, M. T. (1995). Students' help seeking during problem solving: Effects of
grade, goal, and prior achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 352-376.

Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (2005). The conditional and interaction effects of epistemological
beliefs on the self-regulated learning of college students: Motivational strategies. Research in
Higher Education, 46(7), 731-768.

Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). Designing for metacognition -
applying cognitive tutor principles to the tutoring of help seeking. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2),
125-140.

Ryan, A. M., Shim, S., & Patrick, H. (2005). Differential profiles of students identified by their
teacher as having avoidant, appropriate, or dependent help-seeking tendencies in the classroom.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 275-285.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role
of social and self-regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement:
Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 34-50). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

Shih, S. (2007). The role of motivational characteristics in Taiwanese sixth graders' avoidance of
help seeking in the classroom. Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 473-495.

Wood, H., & Wood, D. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers &
Education, 33(2-3), 153-169.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course
attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845-862.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational
Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.

62
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:

Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 51-59.

9.2 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in
interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277-320.

Banda, D. R., Matuszny, R. M., & Turkan, S. (2007). Video modeling strategies to enhance
appropriate behaviors in children with autism. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(6), 47-52.

Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336-353.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., & Paulsen, K. (2002). Hot math: Promoting
mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 35(1), 70-73.

Guthrie, J. T., & Cox, K. E. (2001). Classroom conditions for motivation and engagement in reading.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 283-302.

Newman, R. S. (2002). How self-regulated learners cope with academic difficulty: The role of
adaptive help seeking. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 132-138.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Grolnick, W. S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically
motivated: A theory of internalization and self-regulation in school. In K. Boggiano, & T. Pittman
(Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social development perspective (pp. 167-188). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and
self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.

Schunk, D. H. (2005). Commentary on self-regulation in school contexts. Learning & Instruction,

15(2), 173-177.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children's self-efficacy and self-regulation of
reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7-25.

Seifert, T. L. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46(2), 137-149.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.

Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

63
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of personal competence: Self
regulated learning and practice. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 509-526). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,

methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1),
166-183.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Tsikalas, K. E. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be
used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 267-271.

9.3: Develop self-assessment and reflection

Learning can be affectively inaccessible when success requires that students monitor and reflect on
their own emotional progress and when there are no options for individuals who have difficulty in
doing so. Since there is great variability in students’ capability for monitoring their emotions and
reactivity; students will need varied amounts of explicit instruction and modeling, scaffolded
practice with gradual release, and targeted feedback in order to make progress. Because of
individual differences, multiple models and scaffolds of varied techniques should be offered so
that students can identify, select and use the techniques that are personally optimal. The
experimental evidence listed here suggests the effectiveness of, and the strategies for, developing
students’ self-questioning, self-monitoring, and self-determination skills. The scholarly reviews
and opinions provide a more classroom-based perspective on the importance of developing
students’ abilities for self-assessment and reflection.

9.3 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Wehmeyer, M., & Hughes, C. (2002). Increasing the problem-solving skills
of students with developmental disabilities participating in general education. Remedial and Special
Education, 23(5), 279-288.

Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., Cavin, M., & Palmer, S. (2008). Promoting student active classroom
participation skills through instruction to promote self-regulated learning and self-determination.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(2), 106-114.

Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief
understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78(2),
647-663.

Brewer, M. B., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Emotion and motivation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Butler, D. L. (1997). The roles of goal setting and self-monitoring in students' self-regulated
engagement in tasks. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997).

64
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

de Bruin, A. B. H. (2007). Improving metacomprehension accuracy and self-regulation in cognitive

skill acquisition: The effect of learner expertise. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4/5),
671-688.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning
and achievement. In A. K. Boggiano, & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social
developmental perspective (pp. 3-36). Toronto, ON: Cambridge University Press.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M., et al. (1987). Effects of
explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly,
22(3), 347-368.

Fyrstén, S., Nurmi, J. E., & Lyytinen, H. (2006). The role of achievement beliefs and behaviours in
spontaneous reading acquisition. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 569-582.

Lancaster, P. E., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The development and validation of an
interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(4), 277-302.

Nolan, T. E. (1991). Self-questioning and prediction: Combining metacognitive strategies. Journal

of Reading, 35(2), 132-138.

Ohtake, Y., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). Applying the self-determination theory to Japanese special
education contexts: A four-step model. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 1(3-
4), 169-178.

Ridley, D. S. (1992). Self-regulated learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness

and goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 293-306.

Sawyer, R. J. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit
self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 340-352.

Schunk, D. H. (1985). Participation in goal setting: Effects on self-efficacy and skills of learning-
disabled children. Journal of Special Education, 19(3), 307-317.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-382.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role
of social and self-regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement:
Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 34-50). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

65
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Buchanan, C. L., & Lopez, S. J. (2006). The application of positive
psychology and self-determination to research in intellectual disability: A content analysis of 30
years of literature. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 338-345.

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., et al. (2008).
Understanding the construct of self-determination: Examining the relationship between the Arc's
Self-Determination Scale and the American Institutes for Research Self-Determination Scale.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(2), 94-107.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities
three years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 38(2), 131-144.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., Garner, N. W., & Lawrence, M. (2007). Self-
determination and student transition planning knowledge and skills: Predicting involvement.
Exceptionality, 15(1), 31-44.

Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and
normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 5(3),
228-240.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1996). Self-regulated learning of a motoric skill: The role of goal
setting and self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8(1), 60-75.

9.3 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Anderson, A. (1997). Learning strategies in physical education: Self-talk, imagery, and goal-setting.
The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(1), 30-35.

Banda, D. R., Matuszny, R. M., & Turkan, S. (2007). Video modeling strategies to enhance
appropriate behaviors in children with autism. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(6), 47-52.

Carroll, J., & Christenson, C. N. K. (1995). Teaching and learning about student goal setting in a
fifth-grade classroom. Language Arts, 72(1), 42-49.

Clark, F. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., & Warner, M. M. (1984). Visual imagery
and self-questioning: Strategies to improve comprehension of written material. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 17(3), 145-149.

Lee, S., Palmer, S., Turnbull, A., & Wehmeyer, M. (2006). A model for parent-teacher collaboration
to promote self-determination in young children with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children,
38(3), 36-41.

Montague, M. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 22(1), 75-83.

66
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K., & Agran, M. (2004). Promoting access to the general
curriculum by teaching self-determination skills. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 427-440.

Price, L. A., Wolensky, D., & Mulligan, R. (2002). Self-determination in action in the classroom.
Remedial and Special Education, 23(2), 109.

Reid, R. (1996). Research in self-monitoring with students with learning disabilities: The present,
the prospects, the pitfalls. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 317-331.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Grolnick, W. S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically
motivated: A theory of internalization and self-regulation in school. In K. Boggiano, & T. Pittman
(Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social development perspective (pp. 167-188). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Nolan, S. M., & Alley, G. R. (1994). The self-questioning strategy.
Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas.

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and
self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.

Test, D. W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W. M. (2004). Student
involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 391-413.

Watson, J. S. (1998). ‘‘If you don’t have it, you can’t find it.” A close look at students’ perceptions of
using technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(11), 1024-1036.

Webre, E. C. (2005). Enhancing reading success with collaboratively created progress charts.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 291-295.

Wehmeyer, M. (1997). Self-determination as an educational outcome: A definitional framework

and implications for intervention. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 9(3), 175-209.

Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-
up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 245-
255.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007). Promoting self-determination in students with developmental disabilities.

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Field, S., Doren, B., Jones, B., & Mason, C. (2004). Self-determination and student
involvement in standards-based reform. Exceptional Children, 70(4), 413-426.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2000). Promoting the acquisition and development of self-
determination in young children with disabilities. Early Education and Development, 11(4), 465-481.

67
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Representation Research

1.1: Offer ways of customizing the display of information

The experimental studies on providing options to customize the display of information are focused
on the advantages of flexible typography, layout design, color representation, and large print.
However, the experimental research on this topic, at least with learning as the outcome, is limited.
There are few studies exploring the advantages of flexible size of text and images, of flexible
amplitude of speech and sound, of contrast between background and text or image, of color, etc.
due to the fact that the advantages of such flexibility are generally considered self-evident. The
scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide more classroom-based perspectives on the
advantages of customizable display. Relevant Web Accessibility Guidelines are also included in
this listing.

1.1 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C., Binkley, E., & Crouch, R. (2000). Using objective data
sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 67-
81.

Hughes, L., & Wilkins, A. (2000). Typography in children's reading schemes may be suboptimal:
Evidence from measures of reading rate. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(3), 314-324.

Hughes, L. E., & Wilkins, A. J. (2002). Reading at a distance: Implications for the design of text in
children's big books. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 213-226.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of
multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126-136.

Knowlton, M., & Woo, I. (1989). Functional color vision deficits and performance of children on an
educational task. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 20(4), 156-162.

Koenig, A. J. (1992). The relative effectiveness of reading in large print and with low vision devices
for students with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 86(1), 48-53.

Koenig, A. J., & Ross, D. (1991). A procedure to evaluate the relative effectiveness of reading in
large and regular print. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 85(5), 198-204.

Schwan, S., & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: Learning to tie
nautical knots. Learning & Instruction, 14(3), 293-305.

Sloan, L.L., & Habel, A. (1973). Reading speeds with textbooks in large and in standard print. The
Sight-Saving Review, 43(2), 107-112.

1.1 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

68
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Abell, M. M., Bauder, D. K., & Simmons, T. J. (2005). Access to the general curriculum: A curriculum
and instruction perspective for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(2), 82-86.

Banks, R., & Coombs, N. (2005). Accessible information technology and persons with visual
impairments. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology
research and practice (pp. 379-391). Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by Design, Inc.

Bergman, O. (1999). Wait for me! Reader control of narration rate in talking books. Reading Online,
Retrieved October 31, 2008, from [Link]/articles/bergman/waitforme.

Brinck, T. (2005). Return on goodwill: Return on investment for accessibility. In R. G. Bias, & D. J.
Mayhew (Eds.), Cost-justifying usability (2nd ed., pp. 385-414). Boston, MA: Elsevier.

Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino Reid, L. & Vanderheiden, G. Web accessibility guidelines 2.0:
Guideline 1.3 Adaptable: Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler
layout) without losing information or structure. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from
[Link]

Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino Reid, L. & Vanderheiden, G. Web accessibility guidelines 2.0;
guideline 1.1 Text alternatives: Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be
changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.
Retrieved October 31, 2008, from [Link]

Colenbrander, A., Liegner, J. T., & Fletcher, D. C. (1999). Enhancing impaired vision. Ophthalmology
Monographs, 12, 49-60.

Griffin, H. C., Williams, S. C., Davis, M. L., & Engleman, M. (2002). Using technology to enhance cues
for children with low vision. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 36-42.

Hoffman, B., Hartley, K., & Boone, R. (2005). Reaching accessibility: Guidelines for creating and
refining digital learning materials. Intervention in School & Clinic, 40(3), 171-177.

Holzberg, C. S. (2004). Web site accessibility. Technology & Learning, 24(3), 48.

Lang, M. (1993). Increasing access to information through use of color contrast. EnVision, 1, 1-2.

Medlow, N. (1993). Lighting for children with impaired vision. EnVision, 1, 5.

Simpson, R., Koester, H., & LoPresti, E. (2007). Selecting an appropriate scan rate: The ".65 rule".
Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA, 19(2), 51-8; quiz 59-60.

Stahl, S., & Aronica, M. (2002). Digital text in the classroom. Journal of Special Education Technology,
17(2), 57-59.

69
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Strangman, N., & Hall, T. E. (2003). Text transformations. Wakefield, MA: National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum.

1.2: Offer alternatives for auditory information

The experimental studies listed below are focused on the benefits for learning, of providing
alternatives for information that is primarily presented auditorily. The majority of the experiments
illustrate the advantages of captioning and bimodal presentation of information. The scholarly
reviews and opinion pieces provide more classroom-based perspectives on the advantages of
alternatives to auditory information.

1.2 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning
with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32(1), 115-
132.

Dalton, B., Schleper, D., Kennedy, M., Lutz, L., & Strangman, N. (2005). A universally designed digital
strategic reading environment for adolescents who are deaf and hard of hearing. Final Report to
Gallaudet [Link], MA: CAST.

Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stoner, M. (2006). Using a visual tool to increase adjectives in the written
language of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(2),
95-109.

Furnham, A., De Siena, S., & Gunter, B. (2002). Children's and adults' recall of children's news
stories in both print and audio-visual presentation modalities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(2),
191-210.

Gentry, M. M., Chinn, K. M., & Moulton, R. D. (2005). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials
when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394-403.

Hayes, D. S., Kelley, S. B., & Mandel, M. (1986). Media differences in children's story synopses:
Radio and television contrasted. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5), 341-346.

Jensema, C. J., Danturthi, R. S., & Burch, R. (2000). Time spent viewing captions in television
programs. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(5), 464-468.

Jensema, C. J., & El Sharkawy, S. (2000). Eye movement patterns of captioned television viewers.
American Annals of the Deaf, 145(3), 275-285.

John, D., & Boucouvalas, A. (2002). User performance with audio: The effect of subjects' cognitive
styles. Educational Psychology, 22(2), 133-147.

Linebarger, D. L. (2001). Learning to read from television: The effects of using captions and
narration. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 288-298.

70
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average
and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 271-279.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps
listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156.

Nugent, G. C. (1982). Pictures, audio, and print: Symbolic representation and effect on learning.
Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 30(3),
163-174.

Nugent, G. C. (1983). Deaf students' learning from captioned instruction: The relationship
between the visual and caption display. Journal of Special Education, 17(2), 227-234.

Sinatra, G. (1990). Convergence of listening and reading processing. Reading Research Quarterly,
25(2), 115-130.

Thorn, F., & Thorn, S. (1996). Television captions for hearing-impaired people: A study of key
factors that affect reading. Human Factors, 38(3), 452.

Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257-287.

Xiaowen, F., Shuang, X., Brzezinski, J., & Chan, S. S. (2006). A study of the feasibility and
effectiveness of dual-modal information presentations. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 20(1), 3-17.

1.2 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Brinck, T. (2005). Return on goodwill: Return on investment for accessibility. In R. G. Bias, & D. J.
Mayhew (Eds.), Cost-justifying usability (2nd ed., pp. 385-414). Boston, MA: Elsevier.

Easterbrooks, S. (1999). Improving practices for students with hearing impairments. Exceptional
Children, 65(4), 537-554.

Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations
help? Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 239-244.

Holzberg, C. S. (2004). Web site accessibility. Technology & Learning, 24(3), 48.

Koskinen, P. S., & Wilson, R. M. (1993). Captioned video and vocabulary learning: An innovative
practice in literary instruction. Reading Teacher, 47(1), 36-43.

Marschark, M. (2006). Intellectual functioning of deaf adults and children: Answers and questions.
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 70-89.

71
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Rao, S. M., & Gagie, B. (2006). Learning through seeing and doing: Visual supports for children with
[Link] Exceptional Children, 38(6), 26-33.

Scherer, M. J. (2005). Assistive technology in education for students who are hard of hearing or
deaf. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research
and practice (pp. 393-409). Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by Design.

Stahl, S., & Aronica, M. (2002). Digital text in the classroom. Journal of Special Education Technology,
17(2), 57-59.

Vesel, J. (2005). Signing science! Andy and Tonya are just like me! They wear hearing aids and
know my language!?. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(8), 30-35.

Zazove, P., Meador, H. E., Derry, H. A., Gorenflo, D. W., Burdick, S. W., & Saunders, E. W. (2004).
Deaf persons and computer use. American Annals of the Deaf, 148(5), 376-384.

1.3: Offer alternatives for visual information

The experimental evidence supporting the provision of alternatives for visual information is the
most extensive of all of the checkpoints under the guideline “Provide Options for Perception.”
Evidence that illustrates the benefits of text-to-speech, audio-visual presentations, and Braille are
listed below. The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide more classroom-based
perspectives on the advantages of alternatives for visual information.

1.3 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Aarnoutse, C. A. J., van den Bos, K.P., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (1998). Effects of listening
comprehension training on listening and reading. Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 115-116.

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.

Boyle, E. A., Rosenberg, M. S., Connelly, V. J., Washburn, S. G., Brinckerhoff, L. C., & Banerjee, M.
(2003). Effects of audio texts on the acquisition of secondary-level content by students with mild
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(3), 203-215.

Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning
with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32(1), 115-
132.

Carlisle, J. F., & Felbinger, L. (1991). Profiles of listening and reading comprehension. Journal of
Educational Research, 84(6), 345-354.

D'Angiulli, A., D'Angiulli, A., Kennedy, J. M., Helle, M. A., & Heller, M. A. (1998). Blind children
recognizing tactile pictures respond like sighted children given guidance in exploration.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 187-190.

72
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2004). The efficacy of electronic books in fostering kindergarten
children's emergent story understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(4), 378-393.

Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of
universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read aloud on test performance of
high school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment,
3(7).

Ely, R., Emerson, R. W., Maggiore, T., Rothberg, M., O’Connell, T., & Hudson, L. (2006). Increased
content knowledge of students with visual impairments as a result of extended descriptions.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 31-43.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C., Binkley, E., & Crouch, R. (2000). Using objective data
sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 67-
81.

Furnham, A., De Siena, S., & Gunter, B. (2002). Children's and adults' recall of children's news
stories in both print and audio-visual presentation modalities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(2),
191-210.

Gerlic, I., & Jausovec, N. (1999). Multimedia: Differences in cognitive processes observed with
EEG. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 5-14.

John, D., & Boucouvalas, A. (2002). User performance with audio: The effect of subjects' cognitive
styles. Educational Psychology, 22(2), 133-147.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of
multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126-136.

Koroghlanian, C., & Klein, J. D. (2004). The effect of audio and animation in multimedia instruction.
Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 13(1), 23-46.

Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not
be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(4), 401-418.

MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for
students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273.

MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A
hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 150-159.

Matthew, K. (1997). A comparison of the influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks and

traditional print storybooks on reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 29(3), 263-275.

73
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design
methods across different media. Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.

Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average
and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 271-279.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality
and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(22), 358.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments:
Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 598.

Mousavi, S. L. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and
visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.

Nugent, G. C. (1982). Pictures, audio, and print: Symbolic representation and effect on learning.
Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 30(3),
163-174.

Oakley, G. (2003). Improving oral reading fluency (and comprehension) through the creation of
talking books. Reading Online, 6(7), 1-26.

Olson, R. K., & Wise, B. W. (1992). Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech
feedback. Reading and Writing, 4(2), 107-144.

Pezdek, K., & Hartman, E. F. (1983). Children's television viewing: Attention and comprehension of
auditory versus visual information. Child Development, 54(4), 1015-1023.

Piety, P. J. (2004). The language system of audio description: An investigation as a discursive

process. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98(8), 453-469.

Reitsma, P. (1988). Reading practice for beginners: Effects of guided reading, reading-while-
listening, and independent reading with computer-based speech feedback. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23(2), 219-235.

Sinatra, G. (1990). Convergence of listening and reading processing. Reading Research Quarterly,
25(2), 115-130.

Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and
cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
74(1), 71-81.

Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257-287.

74
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Tinti, C., & Galanti, D. (1999). Interactive auditory and visual images in persons who are totally
blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 93(9), 579-583.

Torgesen, J. K. (1987). Using verbatim text recordings to enhance reading comprehension in

learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(1), 30-38.

Trushell, J., Maitland, A., & Burrell, C. (2003). Pupils' recall of an interactive storybook on CD-
ROM: Inconsiderate interactive features and forgetting. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
19(1), 80-89.

Wetzel, R., & Knowlton, M. (2000). A comparison of print and braille reading rates on three
reading tasks. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94(3), 146-154.

Xiaowen, F., Shuang, X., Brzezinski, J., & Chan, S. S. (2006). A study of the feasibility and
effectiveness of dual-modal information presentations. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 20(1), 3-17.

1.3 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Aarnoutse, C., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (1997). Improving reading comprehension strategies through
listening. Educational Studies, 23(2), 209-227.

Balajthy, E. (2005). Text-to-speech software for helping struggling readers. Reading Online, 8(4), 1-
9.

Banks, R., & Coombs, N. (2005). Accessible information technology and persons with visual
impairments. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology
research and practice (pp. 379-391). Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by Design, Inc.

Brinck, T. (2005). Return on goodwill: Return on investment for accessibility. In R. G. Bias, & D. J.
Mayhew (Eds.), Cost-justifying usability (2nd ed., pp. 385-414). Boston, MA: Elsevier.

Brothers, R. J. (1971). Learning through listening: A review of the relevant factors. New Outlook for
the Blind, 65(7), 224-231.

Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino Reid, L. & Vanderheiden, G. Web accessibility guidelines 2.0;
guideline 1.1 Text alternatives: Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be
changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.
Retrieved January 19, 2009, from [Link]

Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2008). Sensory aids for persons with visual impairments. In A. M.
Cook, & J. M. Polgar (Eds.), Assistive technology principles and practices (3rd ed., pp. 274-309). St.
Louis, MO: Mosby.

75
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations
help? Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 239-244.

Holzberg, C. S. (2004). Web site accessibility. Technology & Learning, 24(3), 48.

Horney, M., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments.
Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15(2), 127-168.

Kurze, M. (1999). TGuide: A guidance system for tactile image exploration. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 18(1), 11-17.

McCall, S., & McLinden, M. (2001). Literacy and children who are blind and who have additional
disabilities—the challenges for teachers and researchers. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 48(4), 355-375.

McKenna, M. C. (1997). Electronic texts and the transformation of beginning reading. In D.

Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Literacy for the 21st century: Technological
transformations in a post-typographical world (pp. 45-59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mckenna, M. C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (1999). The electronic transformation of
literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 111-
126.

McNear, D. (2004). Aligning braille literacy and assistive technology skills with ISTE educational
technology standards. Closing the Gap, 23(5), 1-9.

O'Connor, B. C., & O'Connor, M. K. (1999). Categories, photographs & predicaments: Exploratory
research on representing pictures for access. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science
& Technology, 25(6), 17.

Petty, L. (2005). Listening to the printed page: Features and options in optical character
recognition and reading software. Closing the Gap, 24(1), 4-6.

Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Jumping off the page: Content area curriculum for the internet age.
Reading Online, 5(4).

Rose, D. H., & Dalton, B. (2002). Using technology to individualize reading instruction. In C. C.
Block, L. B. Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research,
theory, and classroom practice (pp. 257-274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Snyder, J. (2005). Audio description: The visual made verbal. International Congress Series, 1282,
935-939.

Stahl, S., & Aronica, M. (2002). Digital text in the classroom. Journal of Special Education Technology,
17(2), 57-59.

76
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Strangman, N., & Dalton, B. (2005). Using technology to support struggling readers: A review of
the research. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education
technology research and practice (pp.545-569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Strangman, N., & Hall, T. E. (2003). Text transformations. Wakefield, MA: National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum.

WGBH National Center for Accessible Media (2009). Effective Practices for Description of Science
Content within Digital Talking Books. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from
[Link]

Wittenstein, S.H, & Pardee, M.L. (1996). Teachers' voices: Comments on braille and literacy from
the field. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 90(3), 201-209.

2.1: Clarify vocabulary and symbols

The use of vocabulary or symbols that are not familiar to the individual creates obstacles or
barriers to comprehension and learning. The majority of the experimental studies listed here
evaluate the effectiveness of the various tools and strategies designed to reduce those barriers
and/or to build vocabulary knowledge. Other experimental studies focus on supporting students'
understanding of the symbols that they encounter in their learning (e.g. interpreting graphs and
maps, "reading" pictures and images, etc.). The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide more
classroom-based perspectives on supporting vocabulary development and symbol interpretation.
Some of the articles in this list focus on the development of second language vocabulary
acquisition. For a more complete list of references on second language learning, please be sure to
explore the references for "Options that promote cross-linguistic understanding" as well.

2.1 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition:
A comparative study. Language, Learning & Technology, 5(1), 202-232.

Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (1993). Hypermedia basal readers: Three years of school-based research.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(2), 86-106.

Bosseler, A., & Massaro, D. W. (2003). Development and evaluation of a computer-animated tutor
for vocabulary and language learning in children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental
Disorders, 33(6), 653-672.

Chun, D. M. (2001). L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hypermedia.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 367-403.

Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The
Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 183-198.

77
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia. System,
24(4), 503-519.

Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers' comprehension through
scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo,
R.D. Kieffer and D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology volume II (pp.
75-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Final report to
the U.S. Department of Education. Peabody: CAST.

Guthrie, J. T., Weber, S., & Kimmerly, N. (1993). Searching documents: Cognitive processes and
deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
18(2), 186-221.

Hebert, B. M., & Murdock, J. Y. (1994). Comparing three computer-aided instruction output modes
to teach vocabulary words to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 9(3), 136-141.

Higgins, N. C., & Cocks, P. (1999). The effects of animation cues on vocabulary development.
Reading Psychology, 20(1), 1-10.

Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in
French with multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 546-561.

MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A
hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 150-159.

Mioduser, D., Tur-Kaspa, H., & Leitner, I. (2000). The learning value of computer-based instruction
of early reading skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(1), 54-63.

Nagy, W., & Scott, J. (2004). Vocabulary processes. In R. R. Ruddell, & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (pp. 574-593). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Nagy, W. E. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233-253.

Nikolova, O. R. (2002). Effects of students' participation in authoring of multimedia materials on

student acquisition of vocabulary. Language, Learning & Technology, 6(1), 100-122.

Olson, R. K., & Wise, B. W. (1992). Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech
feedback. Reading and Writing, 4(2), 107-144.

Papalewis, R. (2004). Struggling middle school readers: Successful, accelerating intervention: Read
180 program. Reading Improvement, 41(1), 24-38.

78
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign
language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in
Human Behavior, 19(2), 221-243.

Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and
struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and
vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71-93.

Rice, M. L. (1990). Words from" sesame street": Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental
Psychology, 26(3), 421-428.

Stewig, J. W. (1994). First graders talk about paintings. Journal of Educational Research, 87(5), 309-
316.

Walsh, M. (2003). 'Reading' pictures: What do they reveal? Young children's reading of visual
texts. Reading, 37(3), 123-130.

Winn, W. D., & Sutherland, S. W. (1989). Factors influencing the recall of elements in maps and
diagrams and the strategies used to encode them. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 33-39.

Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students
with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87-103.

Yeung, A. S. (1999). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in
reading comprehension tasks with vocabulary definitions. Journal of Experimental Education, 67(3),
197-217.

2.1 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Blachowicz, C. L., & Fisher, P. J. (2007). Best practices in vocabulary instruction. In L. B. Gambrell,
L. M. Morrow & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (pp. 178-203). New York:
Guilford Publications, Inc.

Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino Reid, L. & Vanderheiden, G. Web accessibility guidelines 2.0;
guideline 3.1 Readable: Make text content readable and understandable. Retrieved May 26, 2009,
from [Link]

Koskinen, P. S., & Wilson, R. M. (1993). Captioned video and vocabulary learning: An innovative
practice in literary instruction. Reading Teacher, 47(1), 36-43.

Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning.
Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197-203.

79
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Rose, D., & Dalton, B. (2002). Using technology to individualize reading instruction. In C. C. Block,
L. B. Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory,
and classroom practice (pp. 257-274). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Strangman, N., & Dalton, B. (2005). Using technology to support struggling readers: A review of
the research. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education
technology research and practice (pp.545-569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Strangman, N., & Hall, T. E. (2003). Text transformations. Wakefield, MA: National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum.

Verdi, M. P., & Kulhavy, R. W. (2002). Learning with maps and texts: An overview. Educational
Psychology Review, 14(1), 27-46.

Werner, W. (2002). Reading visual texts. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30(3), 401-428.

2.2: Clarify syntax and structure

The particular structure in which information is presented creates its own processing demands or
"cognitive load." The demands of the specific structure in which information is presented raises
barriers that are much more problematic for some learners than others. The majority of the
experimental studies on clarifying syntax and structure listed here focus upon the effectiveness of
various tools and strategies to support students' understanding of syntactic and structural
relationships. Many of the studies here come from a neural basis and examine how syntactical
processing occurs in the brain. The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide more classroom-
based perspectives on supporting students' awareness of syntax and structure.

2.2 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Behrns, I., Ahlsén, E., & Wengelin, Å. (2008). Aphasia and the process of revision in writing a text.
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 22(2), 95-110.

Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Shared syntactic representations in
bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology /
Learning, Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 931-949.

Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Friederici, A. D., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). Who did
what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension.
NeuroImage, 26(1), 221-233.

Celinska, D. K. (2004). Personal narratives of students with and without learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(2), 83-98.

Christensen, K. R. (2008). Interfaces, syntactic movement, and neural activation: A new

perspective on the implementation of language in the brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(2), 73-
103.

80
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Cleary, A. M., & Langley, M. M. (2007). Retention of the structure underlying sentences. Language
& Cognitive Processes, 22(4), 614-628.

de Vries, M. H., Monaghan, P., Knecht, S., & Zwitserlood, P. (2008). Syntactic structure and
artificial grammar learning: The learnability of embedded hierarchical structures. Cognition,
107(2), 763-774.

Dimino, J. A., Taylor, R. M., & Gersten, R. M. (1995). Synthesis of the research on story grammar as
a means to increase comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 11(1), 53-72.

Dommes, P., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1984). Instructional procedures for increasing skill-
deficient fourth graders' comprehension of syntactic structures. Educational Psychology, 4(2), 155-
165.

Ebbels, S. H., Van Der Lely, H. K. J., & Dockrell, J. E. (2007). Intervention for verb argument
structure in children with persistent SLI: A randomized control trial. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 50(5), 1330-1349.

Eigsti, I., Bennetto, L., & Dadlani, M. B. (2007). Beyond pragmatics: Morphosyntactic development
in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(6), 1007-1023.

Friedmann, N., & Szterman, R. (2006). Syntactic movement in orally trained children with hearing
impairment. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(1), 56-75.

Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2007). Is the movement deficit in syntactic SLI related to traces
or to thematic role transfer? Brain and Language, 101(1), 50-63.

Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: Why
reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard. Language & Cognitive Processes, 22(4),
595-613.

Froud, K., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2008). The count-mass distinction in typically developing and
grammatically specifically language impaired children: New evidence on the role of syntax and
semantics. Journal of Communication Disorders, 41(3), 274-303.

Hewitt, L. E., Hinkle, A. S., & Miccio, A. W. (2005). Intervention to improve expressive grammar for
adults with down syndrome. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(3), 144-155.

Hofman, R., & van Oostendorp, H. (1999). Cognitive effects of a structural overview in a hypertext.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 129-140.

Hooper, S. R., Wakely, M. B., de Kruif, R. E. L., & Swartz, C. W. (2006). Aptitude-Treatment
interactions revisited: Effect of metacognitive intervention on subtypes of written expression in
elementary school students. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 217-241.

81
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Kerkhofs, R., Vonk, W., Schriefers, H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2007). Discourse, syntax, and prosody: The
brain reveals an immediate interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(9), 1421-1434.

Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross-
linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses.
Language & Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 860-897.

Klin, C. M., Ralano, A. S., & Weingartner, K. M. (2007). Repeating phrases across unrelated
narratives: Evidence of text repetition effects. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1588-1599.

Law, J., Garrett, Z., & Nye, C. (2004). The efficacy of treatment for children with developmental
speech and language delay/ disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing
Research, 47(4), 924-943.

Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse
linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99(4), 821-834.

Lewis, B. A., Freebairn, L. A., & Taylor, H. G. (2000). Academic outcomes in children with histories
of speech sound disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 33(1), 11-30.

Lœvenbruck, H., Baciu, M., Segebarth, C., & Abry, C. (2005). The left inferior frontal gyms under
focus: An fMRI study of the production of deixis via syntactic extraction and prosodic focus.
Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18(3), 237-258.

Marinis, T., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2007). On-line processing of wh-questions in children with G-
SLI and typically developing children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders,
42(5), 557-582.

Markert, H., Knoblauch, A., & Palm, G. (2007). Modelling of syntactical processing in the cortex.
Biosystems, 89(1-3), 300-315.

McDuffie, A. S., Sindberg, H. A., Hesketh, L. J., & Chapman, R. S. (2007). Use of speaker intent and
grammatical cues in fast-mapping by adolescents with down syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language
& Hearing Research, 50(6), 1546-1561.

Mellow, J. D. (2008). The emergence of complex syntax: A longitudinal case study of the ESL
development of dependency resolution. Lingua, 118(4), 499-521.

Miles, S., Chapman, R., & Sindberg, H. (2006). Sampling context affects MLU in the language of
adolescents with down syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 325-
337.

Milman, L. H., Dickey, M. W., & Thompson, C. K. (2008). A psychometric analysis of functional
category production in English agrammatic narratives. Brain and Language, 105(1), 18-31.

82
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Murray, L. L., & Lenz, L. P. (2001). Productive syntax abilities in Huntington's and Parkinson's
diseases. Brain and Cognition, 46(1-2), 213-219.

Newman, R. M., & McGregor, K. K. (2006). Teachers and laypersons discern quality differences
between narratives produced by children with or without SLI. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing
Research, 49(5), 1022-1036.

Parisse, C., & Maillart, C. (2007). Phonology and syntax in French children with SLI: A longitudinal
study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 21(11), 945-951.

Parladori, D., & Menegus, T. (2005). Correlation between morphosyntactic level and I.Q. in down's
[Link] of a group comprising 96 subjects. Acta Phoniatrica Latina, 27(3), 477-486.

Pearce, W. M., McCormack, P. F., & James, D. G. H. (2003). Exploring the boundaries of SLI:
Findings from morphosyntactic and story grammar analyses. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17(4-
5), 325-334.

Prat, C. S., Keller, T. A., & Just, M. A. (2007). Individual differences in sentence comprehension: A
functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of syntactic and lexical processing demands.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(12), 1950-1963.

Price, J. R., Roberts, J. E., Hennon, E. A., Berni, M. C., Anderson, K. L., & Sideris, J. (2008). Syntactic
complexity during conversation of boys with fragile X syndrome and down syndrome. Journal of
Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 51(1), 3-15.

Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., Hasting, A. S., & Carlyon, R. P. (2008). Syntax as a reflex:
Neurophysiological evidence for early automaticity of grammatical processing. Brain & Language,
104(3), 244-253.

Reed, V. A., MacMillan, V., & McLeod, S. (2001). Elucidating the effects of different definitions of
"utterance" on selected syntactic measures of older children's language samples. Asia Pacific
Journal of Speech, 6(1), 39-45.

Rice, M. L., Taylor, C. L., & Zubrick, S. R. (2008). Language outcomes of 7-year-old children with or
without a history of late language emergence at 24 months. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing
Research, 51(2), 394-407.

Rispens, J., & Been, P. (2007). Subject-verb agreement and phonological processing in
developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment (SLI): A closer look. International Journal
of Language & Communication Disorders, 42(3), 293-305.

Romeo, K. (2008). A web-based listening methodology for studying relative clause acquisition.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 51-66.

83
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Shah, P., & Carpenter, P. A. (1995). Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. Journal of
Experimental Psychology / General, 124(11), 43-61.

Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for
instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47-69.

Shah, P., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for
guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 690-702.

Shulman, C., & Guberman, A. (2007). Acquisition of verb meaning through syntactic cues: A
comparison of children with autism, children with specific language impairment (SLI) and children
with typical language development (TLD). Journal of Child Language, 34(2), 411-423.

Stemberger, J. P. (2007). Children's overtensing errors: Phonological and lexical effects on syntax.
Journal of Memory & Language, 57(1), 49-64.

Torkildsen, J. v. K., Syversen, G., Simonsen, H. G., Moen, I., & Lindgren, M. (2007). Brain responses
to lexical-semantic priming in children at-risk for dyslexia. Brain & Language, 102(3), 243-261.

Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., & Haskill, A. (2002). Efficacy and cross-domain effects of a morphosyntax
and a phonology intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33(1), 52-66.

Valian, V., & Lyman, C. (2003). Young children's acquisition of WH-questions: The role of
structured input. Journal of Child Language, 30(1), 117-143.

Vasilyeva, M., Huttenlocher, J., & Waterfall, H. (2006). Effects of language intervention on
syntactic skill levels in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 164-174.

Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H., & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Emergence of syntax: Commonalities and
differences across children. Developmental Science, 11(1), 84-97.

Vicente, S., Orrantia, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2007). Influence of situational and conceptual rewording
on word problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 829-848.

Vigil, V. T., Eyer, J. A., & Hardee, W. P. (2005). Relevant responding in pragmatic language
impairment: The role of language variation in the information-soliciting utterance. Child Language
Teaching & Therapy, 21(1), 1-21.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Downey, D. M. (1996). Development of school-aged deaf, hard-of-hearing,

and normally hearing students' written language. Volta Review, 98(1), 3-7.

Zywica, J., & Gomez, K. (2008). Annotating to support learning in the content areas: Teaching and
learning science. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 155-165.

2.2 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

84
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Abbeduto, L., Warren, S. F., & Conners, F. A. (2007). Language development in down syndrome:
From the prelinguistic period to the acquisition of literacy. Mental Retardation & Developmental
Disabilities Research Reviews, 13(3), 247-261.

Armstrong, E. (2005). Language disorder: A functional linguistic perspective. Clinical Linguistics &
Phonetics, 19(3), 137-153.

Cain, K. (2007). Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special
relationship? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(4), 679-694.

Hassett, D. D., & Schieble, M. B. (2007). Finding space and time for the visual in K-12 literacy
instruction. English Journal, 97(1), 62-68.

Semel, E., & Rosner, S. R. (2003). Understanding Williams Syndrome: Behavioral patterns and
interventions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Tomalin, M. (2007). Reconsidering recursion in syntactic theory. Lingua, 117(10), 1784-1800.

Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-
interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23(2), 215-242.

2.3: Support decoding of text, mathematical notation, and symbols

Language and numbers must be encoded in visual symbols in order to render them accessible
through print. That raises a new demand - decoding the symbols - which is trivial for many
students but raises significant barriers for some. The majority of the experimental studies listed
here focus upon the effectiveness of providing automatic text-to-speech for students who have
especial difficulty decoding text. Studies find that students' lack of fluency acts as a barrier to
comprehension and that decoding support can provide students access to content. Research on
automatic text-to-speech continues to grow, and we hope to expand this list as more studies
become available. Furthermore, there is limited research on the effectiveness of providing support
for decoding mathematical notation (Mathematical Markup Language, or "Math ML") as this is an
emerging area. Again, we hope to add to this list as more research is completed. The scholarly
reviews and opinion pieces provide more classroom-based perspectives on proving decoding
support to students. The specifications defining MathML are also included in this listing.

2.3 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers' comprehension through
scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo,
R.D. Kieffer and D. Reinking (Ed.), International handbook of literacy and technology volume II (pp. 75-
92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Final report to
the U.S. department of education. Peabody: CAST.

85
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Elbro, C., Rasmussen, I., & Spelling, B. (1996). Teaching reading to disabled readers with language
disorders: A controlled evaluation of synthetic speech feedback. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 37(2), 140-155.

Elkind, J., Black, M. S., & Murray, C. (1996). Computer-based compensation of adult reading
disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 46(1), 159-186.

Elkind, J., Cohen, K., & Murray, C. (1993). Using computer based readers to improve reading
comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238-259.

Hecker, L., Burns, L., Katz, L., Elkind, J., & Elkind, K. (2002). Benefits of assistive reading software
for students with attention disorders. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 243-272.

Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character
Recognition/Speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(2), 75-87.

Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2005). The compensatory effectiveness of the Quicktionary
Reading Pen II on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 20(1), 29-38.

Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., Cantor, B. G., Anthony, J. L., & Goldstein, H. (2003). A
computer-assisted instruction phonological sensitivity program for preschool children at-risk for
reading problems. Journal of Early Intervention, 25(4), 248-262.

Mioduser, D., Tur-Kaspa, H., & Leitner, I. (2000). The learning value of computer-based instruction
of early reading skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(1), 54-63.

Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average
and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 271-279.

Mostow, J., Aist, G., Burkhead, P., Corbett, A., Cuneo, A., Eitelman, S., et al. (2003). Evaluation of an
automated reading tutor that listens: Comparison to human tutoring and classroom instruction.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 61-117.

Papalewis, R. (2004). Struggling middle school readers: Successful, accelerating intervention: Read
180 [Link] Improvement, 41(1), 24-38.

Torgesen, J. K. (1987). Using verbatim text recordings to enhance reading comprehension in

learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(1), 30-38.

2.3 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Ausbrooks, R., et al. Mathematical markup language (MathML) Version 2.0 (second edition).
Retrieved February 4, 2008 from [Link]

86
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Balajthy, E. (2005). Text-to-speech software for helping struggling readers. Reading Online, 8(4), 1-
9.

Horney, M., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments.
Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15(2), 127-168.

McKenna, M. C. (1997). Electronic texts and the transformation of beginning reading. In D.

Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Literacy for the 21st century: Technological
transformations in a post-typographical world (pp. 45-59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mckenna, M. C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (1999). The electronic transformation of
literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 111-
126.

Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning.
Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197-203.

Rose, D. H., & Dalton, B. (2002). Using technology to individualize reading instruction. In C. C.
Block, L. B. Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research,
theory, and classroom practice (pp. 257-274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Strangman, N., & Dalton, B. (2005). Using technology to support struggling readers: A review of
the research. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education
technology research and practice (pp.545-569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Strangman, N., & Hall, T. E. (2003). Text transformations. Wakefield, MA: National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum.

2.4: Promote understanding across languages

While students come to school with many different language backgrounds, the language of
instruction is typically only in English, raising barriers for many. The majority of the experimental
studies on promoting cross-linguistic understanding listed here focus upon the effectiveness of
various tools and strategies to support students' second language acquisition, usually
[Link] studies review a range of approaches such as incorporating multimedia support,
embedding vocabulary support, establishing models of peer support, etc. The scholarly reviews
and opinion pieces provide more classroom-based perspectives on supporting second language
learning. Some of the articles in this list focus upon vocabulary support. For a more complete list of
references on vocabulary development, please be sure to explore the references for "Options that
define vocabulary and symbols" as well.

2.4 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition:
A comparative study. Language, Learning & Technology, 5(1), 202-232.

87
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

August, D., Carlo, M., Calderon, M., & Proctor, C. P. (2005). Development of literacy in Spanish-
speaking English language learners: Findings from a longitudinal study of elementary school
children. Perspectives, 31(2), 17-19.

Baker, S. K., Gersten, R., Haager, D., & Dingle, M. (2006). Teaching practice and the reading growth
of first-grade English learners: Validation of an observation instrument. The Elementary School
Journal, 107(2), 199-220.

Cardenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C. D., & Pollard-Durodola, S. D. (2007). The cross-linguistic transfer
of early literacy skills: The role of initial L1 and L2 skills and language of instruction. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 249-259.

Chun, D. M. (2001). L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hypermedia.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 367-403.

Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia. System,
24(4), 503-519.

Duff, P. A. (2001). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for ESL students in
mainstream courses. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes,
58(1), 103-132.

Fradd, S. H., Lee, O., Sutman, F. X., & Saxton, M. K. (2001) Promoting science literacy with English
language learners through instructional materials development: A case study. Bilingual Research
Journal, 25(4), 417-439.

Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking
Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 371-392.

Jiménez, R., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o
students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research
Quarterly, 31(1), 90-112.

Jimenez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1995). Three children, two languages, and strategic
reading: Case studies in Bilingual/Monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal,
32(1), 67-97.

Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in
French with multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 546-561.

Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross-
linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses.
Language & Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 860-897.

88
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Kobayashi, M. (2003). The role of peer support in ESL students' accomplishment of oral academic
tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 59(3), 337-
369.

Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse
linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99(4), 821-834.

Mellow, J. D. (2008). The emergence of complex syntax: A longitudinal case study of the ESL
development of dependency resolution. Lingua, 118(4), 499-521.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2001). Moving from the ESL classroom into the mainstream: An investigation
of English language anxiety in Mexican girls. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1/2), 31-38.

Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign
language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in
Human Behavior, 19(2), 221-243.

Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., Leutner, D., Petig, W., & Voge, W. (1998). Supporting visual
and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 25-36.

Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and
struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and
vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71-93.

Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in
English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246-256.

Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. E. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language
vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(1), 159-169.

Riccio, C. A., Amado, A., Jimenez, S., Hasbrouck, J. E., Imhoff, B., & Denton, C. (2001). Cross-
linguistic transfer of phonological processing: Development of a measure of phonological
processing in Spanish. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 583-604.

Romeo, K. (2008). A web-based listening methodology for studying relative clause acquisition.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 51-66.

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-
assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24(4), 491-501.

Taylor, B. P. (1975). The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary
and intermediate students of ESL 1. Language Learning, 25(1), 73-107.

89
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 4(4), 313-330.

2.4 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Busch, H. (2003). Computer based readers for intermediate foreign-language students.
Educational Media International, 40(3), 276-285.

Coelho, E. (1994). Learning together in the multicultural classroom. Markham, Ontario: Pippin
Publishing Limited.

Deignan, A., Gabrys, D., & Solska, A. (1997). Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic
awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal, 51(4), 352-360.

Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for

language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 189-204.

Gersten, R. (1994). Effective instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students: A
reconceptualization. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(1), 1-16.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). The professional knowledge base on instructional practices that
support cognitive growth for english-language learners. In R. M. Gersten, E. P. Schiller & S. Vaughn
(Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical
instructional issues (pp. 31-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language minority student and special education: Issues,
themes and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 310-322. (1994).

Mayer, C., & Akamatsu, C. T. (2003). Bilingualism and literacy. In M. Marschark, & P. E. Spencer
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 136-147). New York: Oxford
University Press.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Spangenberg-Urbschat, K., & Pritchard, R. H. (1994). Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction
for ESL students. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Strangman, N., Meyer, A., Hall, T., & Proctor, P. (2008). Improving foreign language instruction
with new technologies and universal design for learning. In E. Hamilton, & T. & Barbieri (Eds.),
Worlds apart: Disability and foreign language learning (pp. 33-48). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.

Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh-
interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23(2), 215-242.

90
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Watts-Taffe, S., & Truscott, D. M. (2000). Using what we know about language and literacy
development for ESL students in the mainstream classroom. Language Arts, 77(3), 258-265.

2.5: Illustrate through multiple media

In formal schooling, there is a marked tendency to present the majority of information in language,
specifically in printed text. Many students for whom language is not a particular strength face
persistent barriers not experienced by others. The experimental studies on the option of
illustrating key concepts non-linguistically listed here span a range of media. There is extensive
research to support the representation of information through a variety of formats: video,
diagram, image, music, animation, and more. The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide
more classroom-based perspectives on the importance of using a range of media to convey
content to students.

2.5 Experimental and Quantitative Evidence

Anderson, D. R., Fite, K. V., Petrovich, N., & Hirsch, J. (2006). Cortical activation while watching
video montage: An fMRI study. Media Psychology, 8(1), 7-24.

Babbitt, B. C., & Miller, S. P. (1996). Using hypermedia to improve the mathematics problem-
solving skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 391-401,
412.

Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Bruchmuller, K., & Hacker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with
interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33(1),
73-95.

Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information
during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning & Instruction, 14(3), 325-341.

Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (1993). Hypermedia basal readers: Three years of school-based research.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(2), 86-106.

Bottge, B. A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex,
authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children,
59(6), 556-566.

Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for
students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 18(2), 99-111.

Calvert, S. L., & Billingsley, R. L. (1998). Young children's recitation and comprehension of
information presented by songs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 97-108.

Carlson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional
material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 629-640.

91
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Cennamo, K. S. (1993). Learning from video: Factors influencing learners' preconceptions and
invested mental effort. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(3), 33-45.

Center, Y., Freeman, L., Robertson, G., & Outhred, L. (1999). The effect of visual imagery training
on the reading and listening comprehension of low listening comprehenders in year 2. Journal of
Research in Reading, 22(3), 241-256.

Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia. System,
24(4), 503-519.

Doty, D. E., Popplewell, S. R., & Byers, G. O. (2001). Interactive CD-ROM storybooks and young
readers' reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(4), 374-384.

Dubois, M., & Vial, I. (2000). Multimedia design: The effects of relating multimodal information.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(2), 157-165.

Filippatou, D., & Pumfrey, P. D. (1996). Pictures, titles, reading accuracy and reading
comprehension: A research review (1973-95). Educational Research, 38(3), 259-291.

Furnham, A., De Siena, S., & Gunter, B. (2002). "Children's and adults' recall of children's news
stories in both print and audio-visual presentation modalities": Correction. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 16(2), 191-210.

Gambrell, L. B., & Jawitz, P. B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children's story
comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(3), 256-276.

Gentry, M. M., Chinn, K. M., & Moulton, R. D. (2005). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials
when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394-403.

Gerlic, I., & Jausovec, N. (1999). Multimedia: Differences in cognitive processes observed with
EEG. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 5-14.

Grace-Martin, M. (2001). How to design educational multimedia: A "loaded" question. Journal of

Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 10(4), 397-409.

Hari Narayanan, N., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynamic
information. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 279-315.

Hegarty, M., Narayanan, N. H., & Freitas, P. (2002). Understanding machines from multimedia and
hypermedia presentations. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science
text comprehension. (pp.357-384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Holmes, B. C. (1987). Children's inferences with print and pictures. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 79(1), 14-18.

92
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Loscalzo, M. J. (2006). The role of pictures in improving
health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence.
Patient Education & Counseling, 61(2), 173-190.

Innes Helsel, F. K., H., H. J., Miller, G., Malinow, A., & Murray, E. (2006). Identifying evidence-based,
promising and emerging practices that use screen-based technology to teach mathematics in grades K-8:
A research synthesis. CITEd Research Center. Retrieved February 3, 2009 from
[Link]

Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in
French with multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 546-561.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in
multimedia instruction. Applied cognitive psychology, 13(4), 351-371.

Kamil, M., Intrator, S., & Kim, H. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy
learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.
771-788). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Koroghlanian, C., & Klein, J. D. (2004). The effect of audio and animation in multimedia instruction.
Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 13(1), 23-46.

Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social
affordances for science understanding. Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 205-226.

Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not
be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(4), 401-418.

Lee, Y., Park, S., Kim, M., Son, C., & Lee, M. (2005). The effects of visual illustrations on learners'
achievement and interest in PDA (personal digital assistant) based learning. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 33(2), 137-791.

Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational
Communication & Technology Journal, 30(4), 195-232.

Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning &
Instruction, 13(2), 177-189.

Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning & Instruction,
14(3), 257-274.

Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic

graphics. Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 157-176.

93
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Matthew, K. (1997). A comparison of the influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks and

traditional print storybooks on reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 29(3), 263-275.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Using illustrations to promote constructivist learning from science text. In J.
Otero, J. Leon & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 333-356).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational
Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.

Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build
connections between words and pictures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444-452.

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When
presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),
187-198.

Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a
dual-coding theory of multimedia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.

Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design
methods across different media. Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.

McClean, P., Johnson, C., Rogers, R., Daniels, L., Reber, J., Slator, B. M., et al. (2005). Molecular and
cellular biology animations: Development and impact on student learning. Cell Biology Education,
4(2), 169-179.

Paas, F., Van Gerven, P. W. M., & Wouters, P. (2007). Instructional efficiency of animation: Effects
of interactivity through mental reconstruction of static frames. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6),
783-793.

Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign
language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in
Human Behavior, 19(2), 221-243.

Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives:
A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25.

Research Center, Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd). K-8 screen-based
technology to support mathematics. Retrieved February 3, 2009 from
[Link]

94
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Research Center, Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd). Multimedia

technologies. Retrieved February 3, 2009 from [Link]

Research Center, Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd). Supporting students in
mathematics through the use of manipulatives. Retrieved February 3, 2009 from
[Link]

Rice, M. L. (1990). Words from "Sesame Street": Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental
Psychology, 26(3), 421-428.

Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S. C., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation
within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning & Instruction, 14, 307-323.

Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in
multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 47-58.

Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple
representation. Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 141-156.

Schwan, S., & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: Learning to tie
nautical knots. Learning & Instruction, 14(3), 293-305.

Shephard, K. (2003). Questioning, promoting and evaluating the use of streaming video to support
student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 295-308.

Trushell, J., Maitland, A., & Burrell, C. (2003). Pupils' recall of an interactive storybook on CD-
ROM: Inconsiderate interactive features and forgetting. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
19(1), 80-89.

Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using a computer-adapted, conceptually based history text to
increase comprehension and problem-solving skills of students with disabilities. TAM Board
Members, 21(2), 5-16.

Walma Van Der Molen, J.H., & Van Der Voort, T. H. A. (2000). The impact of television, print, and
audio on children's recall of the news. Human Communication Research, 26(1), 3-36.

Weiss, I., Kramarski, B., & Talis, S. (2006). Effects of multimedia environments on kindergarten
children's mathematical achievements and style of learning. Educational Media International, 43(1),
3-17.

Winn, W., Berninger, V., Richards, T., Aylward, E., Stock, P., Lee, Y. L., et al. (2006). Effects of
nonverbal problem solving treatment on skills for externalizing visual representation in upper
elementary grade students with and without dyslexia. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
34(4), 381-404.

95
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Xin, J. F., & Rieth, H. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students
with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 87-103.

2.5 Scholarly reviews and expert opinions

Ainsworth, S., & VanLabeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning &
Instruction, 14(3), 241-255.

Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000). Critical media literacy: Research, theory, and practice in
"New Times." Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 193-205.

Astleitner, H., & Wiesner, C. (2004). An integrated model of multimedia learning and motivation.
Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 13(1), 3-21.

Bean, T. W. (2000). ReWrite: A music strategy for exploring content area concepts. Reading Online.
Retrieved February 3, 2009 from
[Link]

Bousted, M., & Ozturk, A. (2004). "It came alive outside my head." Developing literacies through
comparison: The reading of classic text and moving image. Literacy, 38(1), 52-57.

Carnahan, C. R. (2006). Photovoice: Engaging children with autism and their teachers. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 39(2), 44-54.

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text.
Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5-26.

Caspi, A., Gorsky, P., & Privman, M. (2005). Viewing comprehension: Students' learning
preferences and strategies when studying from video. Instructional Science, 33(1), 31-47.

Clark, R. C., & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning: Proven guidelines for planning, designing, and
evaluating visuals in training materials. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Considine, D. M. (1986). Visual literacy & children's books: An integrated approach. School Library
Journal, 33(1), 38-42.

Dethier, B. (1991). Using music as a second language. English Journal, 80(8), 72-76.

Edwards, C. P., & Willis, L. M. (2000). Integrating visual and verbal literacies in the early childhood
classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 27(4), 259-265.

Flannery, M. C. (2006). Thinking in pictures. American Biology Teacher, 68(5), 299-303.

Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations
help? Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 239-244.

96
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Gyselinck, V., & Tardieu, H. (1999). The role of illustrations in text comprehension: What, when, for
whom, and why? The Construction of Mental Representations during Reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Heba, G. (1997). HyperRhetoric: Multimedia, literacy, and the future of composition. Computers
and Composition, 14(1), 19-44.

Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions.
Learning & Instruction, 14, 343-351.

Hibbing, A. N., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual
images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. Reading Teacher, 56(8),
758-770.

Kinzer, C. K., Gabella, M. S., & Rieth, H. J. (1994). An argument for using multimedia and anchored
instruction to facilitate mildly disabled students' learning of literacy and social studies. Technology
and Disability, 3(2), 117-128.

Labbo, L. D., Eakle, A. J., & Montero, M. K. (2002). Digital language experience approach: Using
digital photographs and software as a language experience approach innovation. Reading Online.
Retrieved February 3, 2009 from
[Link]

Lapp, D., Flood, J., & Fisher, D. (1999). Intermediality: How the use of multiple media enhances
learning. Reading Teacher, 52(7), 776-780.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 14(1), 87-99.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning &
Instruction, 12(1), 107-119.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

Moore, D., & Taylor, J. (2000). Interactive multimedia systems for students with autism. Journal of
Educational Media, 25(3), 169-177.

Nathan, M., & Robinson, C. (2001). Considerations of learning and learning research: Revisiting the
"media effects" debate. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 69-88.

Newkirk, T. (2006). Media and literacy: What's good? Educational Leadership, 64(1), 62-66.

Pailliotet, A. W., Semali, L., Rodenberg, R. K., Giles, J. K., & Macaul, S. L. (2000). Intermediality:
Bridge to critical media literacy. Reading Teacher, 54(2), 208-219.

97
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive
multimedia. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(3), 63-85.

Parsons, J., & Cole, L. (2005). What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation
of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. Data & Knowledge
Engineering, 55(3), 327-342.

Smith, J. L., & Herring, J. D. (1996). Literature alive: Connecting to story through the arts. Reading
Horizons, 37(2), 102-115.

Stevens, R., & Palacio-Cayetano, J. (2003). Design and performance frameworks for constructing
problem-solving simulations. Cell Biology Education, 2(3), 162-179.

Strangman, N., Hall, T. E., & Meyer, A. (2003). Virtual Reality/Simulations with UDL. Wakefield, MA:
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.

Styles, M., & Arizpe, E. (2001). A gorilla with "grandpa's eyes": How children interpret visual texts--
A case study of Anthony Browne's "Zoo". Children's Literature in Education, 32(4), 261-281.

Williams, T. R. (1993). Text or graphic: An information processing perspective on choosing the

more effective medium. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 23(1), 33-52.

Wissick, C. A. (1996). Multimedia: Enhancing instruction for students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(5), 494-503.

3.1: Activate or supply background knowledge

Learning can be cognitively inaccessible when it requires specific background knowledge for
assimilation, and where there are no options for individuals who differ in their access to that
background knowledge. Those barriers can be reduced when options are available that supply or
activate relevant prior knowledge, or link to the pre-requisite information elsewhere. The
experimental and quantitative evidence listed here suggests the effectiveness of strategies such
as anchored instruction, advanced organizers, analogies, and metaphors to activate students’
background knowledge. The scholarly reviews and expert opinions provide a more classroom-
based perspective on many of the same strategies listed in the experimental evidence section.

3.1 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the
comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 420-436.

Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Serlin, R. C., & Hung, Y. H. (2007). Shrinking achievement differences with
anchored math problems: Challenges and possibilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 31-
49.

98
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Carr, S. C., & Thompson, B. (1996). The effects of prior knowledge and schema activation
strategies on the inferential reading comprehension of children with and without learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(1), 48-61.

Davis, S. J., & Winek, J. (1989). Improving expository writing by increasing background knowledge.
Journal of Reading, 33(3), 178-181.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and
outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research,
69(2), 145.

Dole, J. A., Valencia, S. W., Greer, E. A., & Wardrop, J. L. (1991). Effects of two types of prereading
instruction on the comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading Research Quarterly,
26(2), 142-159.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Dutka, S., & Katzaroff, M. (2000). The importance of
providing background information on the structure and scoring of performance assessments.
Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 1-34.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning
disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(3), 162-170.

Langone, J., Malone, D. M., & Clinton, G. N. (1999). The effects of technology-enhanced anchored
instruction on the knowledge of preservice special educators. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 22(2), 85-96.

Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student outcomes
in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 437-451.

Luiten, J., Ames, W., & Ackerson, G. (1980). A meta-analysis of the effects of advance organizers on
learning and retention. American Educational Research Journal, 17(2), 211-218.

Rieth, H. J., Bryant, D. P., Kinzer, C. K., Colburn, L. K., Hur, S. J., & Hartman, P. (2003). An analysis of
the impact of anchored instruction on teaching and learning activities in two ninth-grade language
arts classes. Remedial and Special Education, 24(3), 173-184.

Schwartz, N. H., Stroud, M., Hong, N. S., Lee, T., Scott, B., & McGee, S. M. (2006). Summoning prior
knowledge: The influence of metaphorical priming on learning in a hypermedia environment.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(1), 1-30.

Serafino, K., & Cicchelli, T. (2003). Cognitive theories, prior knowledge, and anchored instruction
on mathematical problem solving and transfer. Education and Urban Society, 36(1), 79-93.

Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations.

Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 227-237.

99
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and
prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42(1), 33-46.

Shyu, H. Y. (1997). Anchored instruction for Chinese students: Enhancing attitudes toward
mathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(1), 55-62.

Shyu, H. Y. (1999). Effects of media attributes in anchored instruction. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 21(2), 119-139.

Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with
informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 249-260.

Stone, C. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies. Journal of Experimental Education,

51(7), 194-199.

Woloshyn, V., Paivio, A., & Pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to help students
acquire information consistent with prior knowledge and information inconsistent with prior
knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 79-89.

3.1 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Bean, T. W. (1995). Strategies for enhancing text comprehension in middle school. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 11(2), 163-171.

Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990).
Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds.),
Cognition, education and multimedia (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1994). The concept anchoring routine. Lawrence,
Kansas: Edge Enterprises, Inc.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1998). The concept mastery routine. Lawrence,
Kansas: Edge Enterprises, Inc.

Burke, M. D., Hagan, S. L., & Grossen, B. (1998). What curricular designs and strategies
accommodate diverse learners?. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 34-38.

Carr, E., & Ogle, D. (1987). KWL plus: A strategy for comprehension and summarization. Journal of
Reading, 30(7), 626-631.

Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., Bulgren, J., Lenz, K., Jantzen, J., Adams, G., et al. (2001). Making learning
easier: Connecting new knowledge to things students already know. Teaching Exceptional Children,
33(4), 82-85.

100
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Dochy, F. J. R. C., & Alexander, P. A. (1995). Mapping prior knowledge: A framework for discussion
among researchers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(3), 225-242.

Hall, T. E. (2002). Explicit instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General
[Link] on June 3, 2009, from [Link]/products-
services/resources/2002/ncac-explicit-instruction.

Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse
learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Kinzer, C. K., Gabella, M. S., & Rieth, H. J. (1994). An argument for using multimedia and anchored
instruction to facilitate mildly disabled students' learning of literacy and social studies. Technology
and Disability, 3(2), 117-128.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning.
Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197-203.

Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strategies that
improve children's memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 3-32.

Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Rankin, J., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the
instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145-160.

Rose, D. H., & Dalton, B. (2002). Using technology to individualize reading instruction. In C. C.
Block, L. B. Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research,
theory, and classroom practice (pp. 257-274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Zemitzsch, A., & Warner, M. W. (1993). The visual imagery strategy.
Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas.

Strangman, N., & Hall, T. E. (2004). Background knowledge. Wakefield, MA: National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved on June 3, 2009, from [Link]/products-
services/resources/2004/ncac-background-knowledge-udl.

Strangman, N., Hall, T. E. & Meyer, A. (2004). Background knowledge Differentiated instruction and
the implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum. Retrieved on June 3, 2009, from [Link]/products-
services/resources/2014/ncac-differentiated-instruction-udl.

101
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2005). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Understanding the
wrong answers - teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biology Education, 4(2), 112-117.

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its
relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and its
relationship to situated cognition revisited. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 52-70.

Xin, F. (1996). Multimedia reading: Using anchored instruction and video technology in vocabulary
lessons. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(2), 45-49.

3.2: Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships

Learning can be cognitively inaccessible when it requires the ability to select and prioritize among
many elements or sources, and where there are no options for individuals who differ in that
capability. One of the most effective ways to make information more accessible is to provide
explicit cues or prompts that assist individuals in attending to those features that matter most
while avoiding those that matter least. The experimental and quantitative evidence listed here
reveals the effectiveness of strategies such as the use of graphic organizers, advanced organizers,
multiple analogies and examples, and study guides to emphasize key ideas and relationships. The
scholarly reviews and expert opinions provide a more classroom-based perspective on the
effectiveness of highlighting critical features, big ideas, and relationships.

3.2 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, B. K. (2000). The use and effectiveness of
analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(3), 426-441.

Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Marquis, J. G. (2002). The use and
effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(2), 356-371.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine
in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 11(1), 3-17.

Dyck, N., & Sunbye, N. (1988). The effects of text explicitness on story understanding and recall by
learning disabled children. LD Research, 3(2), 68-77.

Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading
comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17.

Glick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306-
355.

102
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Hamilton, S. L., Seibert, M. A., Gardner III, R., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2000). Using guided notes to
improve the academic achievement of incarcerated adolescents with learning and behavior
problems. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 133-140.

Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., Givens, A., & Nelson, R. (1989). Teaching social studies to high school
students with academic handicaps in a mainstreamed setting: Effects of a computerized study
guide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(2), 102-107.

MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A
hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 150-159.

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When
presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),
187-198.

Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate
meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29-52.

Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and
Instruction, 12(1), 61-86.

3.2 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1998). The concept mastery routine. Lawrence,
Kansas: Edge Enterprises, Inc.

Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, K. B., Deshler, D. D., & Shumaker, J. B. (1995). The concept comparison routine.
Lawrence, Kansas: Edge Enterprises, Inc.

Burke, M. D., Hagan, S. L., & Grossen, B. (1998). What curricular designs and strategies
accommodate diverse learners? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 34-38.

Ellis, E., Farmer, T., & Newman, J. (2005). Big ideas about teaching big ideas. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 38(1), 34-40.

Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future.
Discourse Processes, 23, 357-398.

Grossen, B., Caros, J., Carnine, D., Davis, B., Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., et al. (2002). BIG ideas (plus
a little effort) produce big results. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(4), 70-73.

Gyselinck, V., & Tardieu, H. (1999). The role of illustrations in text comprehension: What, when,
for whom, and why. In H. Van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental
representations during reading (pp.195–218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

103
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Hall, T., & Vue, G. (2002). Explicit Instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the
General Curriculum. (Updated 2014). Retrieved January 9, 2018 from
[Link]

Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse
learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Lenz, K. B., Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Boudah, D. A. (1994). The unit organizer
routine. Lawrence, Kansas: Edge Enterprises, Inc.

Lenz, K. B., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Bulgren, J. A. (1998). The course organizer routine.
Lawrence, Kansas: Edge Enterprises, Inc.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

3.3: Guide information processing and visualization

Learning can be cognitively inaccessible when successful learning requires specific information
processing strategies, and when there are no options for individuals who lack such strategies.
When presented with new concepts, experienced learners use prior knowledge and experience to
facilitate their information processing. However, many students lack the experience and the skills
that guide them in their learning. These students benefit from explicit instruction and practice on
the strategies involved in the selection and manipulation of information so that it can be better
summarized, categorized, prioritized, contextualized and remembered. The experimental and
quantitative research listed here suggests that strategies such as explicit prompts, graphic
organizers, concept maps, strategy instruction, and chunking information into smaller elements all
serve to increase student achievement. The scholarly reviews and expert opinions provide a more
classroom-based perspective on effectively guiding students’ information processing.

3.3 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.

Blankenship, T. L., Ayres, K. M., & Langone, J. (2005). Effects of computer-based cognitive mapping
on reading comprehension for students with emotional behavior disorders. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 20(2), 15-23.

Block, C. C. (1993). Strategy instruction in a literature-based reading program. The Elementary

School Journal, 94(2), 139-151.

Boon, R. T., Burke, M. D., Fore III, C., & Spencer, V. G. (2006). The impact of cognitive organizers
and technology-based practices on student success in secondary social studies classrooms. Journal
of Special Education Technology, 21(1), 5-15.

104
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Bulgren, J., Deshler, D. D., & Lenz, B. K. (2007). Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order
thinking about history concepts using integrated content enhancement routines. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 121-133.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine
in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 11(1), 3-17.

Carlson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional
material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 629-640.

Casteel, C. A. (1990). Effects of chunked text material on reading comprehension of high and low
ability readers. Reading Improvement, 27(4), 269-275.

Dalton, B., Morocco, C. C., Tivnan, T., & Rawson Mead, P. L. (1997). Supported-inquiry science:
Teaching for conceptual change in the urban classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 670-
684.

Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Final report to
the U.S. department of education. Peabody: CAST.

Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the
comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62-77.

Englert, C., Raphael, L., Anderson, H., & Stevens, D. (1991). Making strategies and self talk visible:
Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research
Journal, 28(2), 337-372.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., Courey, S. J., Hamlett, C. L., Sones, E. M., et al. (2006). Teaching
third graders about real-life mathematical problem solving: A randomized controlled study. The
Elementary School Journal, 106(4), 293-311.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Hamlett, C. L., Finelli, R., & Courey, S. J. (2004). Enhancing
mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with schema-based instruction. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 635-647.

Gajria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of
students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(6), 508-516.

Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading
comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17.

Hamilton, S. L., Seibert, M. A., Gardner III, R., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2000). Using guided notes to
improve the academic achievement of incarcerated adolescents with learning and behavior
problems. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 133-140.

105
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Hannafin, R. D. (2004). Achievement differences in structured versus unstructured instructional

geometry programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 19-32.

Herl, H. E., O'Neil, H. F. J., Chung, G. K. W. K., & Schacter, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of a
computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computers in
Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 315-333.

Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students
with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 402-412.

Hofman, R., & van Oostendorp, H. (1999). Cognitive effects of a structural overview in a hypertext.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 129-140.

Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., Givens, A., & Nelson, R. (1989). Teaching social studies to high school
students with academic handicaps in a mainstreamed setting: Effects of a computerized study
guide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(2), 102-107.

Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading
comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 10(3), 214-229.

Jacobson, M. J. (2008). A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: Theory,

research, and learning emerging scientific perspectives. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 56(1), 5-28.

Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 91-106.

Lenz, B. K., Ehren, B. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2005). The content literacy continuum: A school reform
framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6),
60-63.

Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning
environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5-21.

Lodewyk, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2009). Implications of task structure on self-
regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 1-25.

Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization

and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 270-
279.

Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning:

Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96(2), 283-296.

106
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

McCormick, S. (1989). Effects of previews on more skilled and less skilled readers' comprehension
of expository text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21(13), 219-234.

Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in
computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated
pedagogical agents?. Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.

Owen, R. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving strategy instruction for third-
grade students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 268-278.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(1), 117-175.

Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1999). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-640). White
Plains, NY: Longman.

Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and
Instruction, 12(1), 61-86.

Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hubscher, R. (2003). Improving navigation and learning in
hypertext environments with navigable concept maps. Human-Computer Interaction, 18(4), 395-
428.

Reinking, D. (1988). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of reading
time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 484-498.

Reinking, D., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer mediated text on measures of reading
comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 536-552.

Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Beth, A., Odom, S., Hsieh, Y. P., & Vanderveen, A. (2006).
Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. The
Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 103-111.

Robinson, D. H., Robinson, S. L., & Katayama, A. D. (1999). When words are represented in memory
like pictures: Evidence for spatial encoding of study materials. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24(1), 38-54.

Rosenshine, B. (1997). Advances in research on instruction. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui & D.

Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 197-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Rosenshine, B., & & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.

107
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and
prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42(1), 33-46.

Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2001). The contexts of comprehension: The information book
read aloud, comprehension acquisition, and comprehension instruction in a first-grade classroom.
The Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 97-122.

Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting
a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124-135.

Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129-140.

Vye, N. J. (1990). The effects of anchored instruction for teaching social studies: Enhancing
comprehension of setting information. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Boston, MA.

Zydney, J. M. (2008). Cognitive tools for scaffolding students defining an ill-structured problem.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(4), 353-385.

3.3 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools
for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing
meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(1), 65-77.

Bockholt, S. M., West, J. P., & Bollenbacher, W. E. (2003). Cancer cell biology: A student-centered
instructional module exploring the use of multimedia to enrich interactive, constructivist learning
of science. Cell Biology Education, 2(1), 35-50.

Cawley, J. F. (1994). Science for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education (RASE),
15(2), 67-71.

Clark, F. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., & Warner, M. M. (1984). Visual imagery
and self-questioning: Strategies to improve comprehension of written material. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 17(3), 145-149.

Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2007). Reading as thinking: Integrating strategy instruction in a
universally designed digital literacy environment. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension
strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 421-439). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Assoc Inc.

Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction (pp. 28-41). New York, NY: Guilford Publications, Inc.

108
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Dye, G. A. (2000). Graphic organizers to the rescue! helping students link - and remember -
information. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 72-76.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how school should teach. New York,
NY: Basic Books.

Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future.
Discourse Processes, 23, 357-398.

Hall, T. (2002). Explicit instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General
[Link] on June 12, 2009, from [Link]/publications/2002/ncac-explicit-
instruction.

Ives, B., & Hoy, C. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-level secondary mathematics.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(1), 36-51.

Jones, B. F. (1986). Quality and equality through cognitive instruction. Educational Leadership,
43(7), 4-11.

Madigan, Hall, & Glang. (1997). Effective assessment and instructional practices for students with
ABI. In A. Glang, G. H. S. Singer & B. Todis (Eds.), Students with acquired brain injury: The school's
response (pp. 123-184). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). What will I do to help students effectively interact with new knowledge?
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2005). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with
disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them.
Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from
[Link]

Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science
education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated

comprehension. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Teaching for meaningful understanding and self-regulated learning
(pp. 35-71). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Pressley, M. (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's academic
performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

109
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Rankin, J., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the
instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145-160.

Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In K. J.
Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 775-802).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. G., & Meloth, M. S. (1984). What to be direct about in direct instruction in
reading: Content-only versus process-into-content. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.), The contexts of school-
based literacy (pp. 79-95). New York, NY: Random House.

Rose, D. H., & Dalton, B. (2002). Using technology to individualize reading instruction. In C. C.
Block, L. B. Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research,
theory, and classroom practice (pp. 257-274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.
Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building:
A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-
68.

Schumaker, J. B., Denton, P. H., & Deshler, D. D. (1984). The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence, KS:
The University of Kansas.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Zemitzsch, A., & Warner, M. W. (1993). The visual imagery strategy.
Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas.

Seidel, R. J., Perencevich, K. C., & Kett, A. L. (2005). From principles of learning to strategies for
instruction: Empirically based ingredients to guide instructional development. New York, NY: Springer.

Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Problem-solving schema with question generation for
comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 166-186.

Swanson, H. L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students with learning
disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(2), 1-15.

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

Tarver, S. G. (1996). Direct instruction. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues
confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 143-165). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

110
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Wiener, D. (2005). One state’s story: Access and alignment to the GRADE-LEVEL content for students
with significant cognitive disabilities. (Synthesis Report No. 57). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

3.4: Maximize transfer and generalization

Learning can be cognitively inaccessible when success requires specific capacities in working or
long-term memory, and where there are no options for students who differ in such memory
capacities. Some students require explicit supports for memory and transfer in order to improve
cognitive accessibility. Supports for memory and transfer include techniques that are designed to
heighten the memorability of information as well as those that prompt and guide students to
employ explicit mnemonic strategies. The experimental and quantitative research listed below
supports the effectiveness of strategies such as strategic notetaking, visual imagery, and explicitly
teaching for transfer in order to support students’ memory and transfer. The scholarly reviews
and expert options provide a more classroom-based perspective on strategies that will support
memory and transfer.

3.4 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (2001). The effects of strategic notetaking on the recall and
comprehension of lecture information for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(3), 133-141.

Breznitz, Z. (1997). Effects of accelerated reading rate on memory for text among dyslexic
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 289-297.

Brownell, M. T., Mellard, D. F., & Deshler, D. D. (1993). Differences in the learning and transfer
performance between students with learning disabilities and other low-achieving students on
problem-solving tasks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 138-156.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Finelli, R., Courey, S. J., & Hamlett, C. L. (2004). Expanding schema-based
transfer instruction to help third graders solve real-life mathematical problems. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 419-445.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Appleton, A. C. (2002). Explicitly teaching for transfer:
Effects on the mathematical problem-solving performance of students with mathematics
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2), 90-106.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Phillips, N. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1995). Acquisition and transfer
effects of classwide peer-assisted learning strategies in mathematics for students with varying
learning histories. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 604-620.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., et al. (2003). Explicitly
teaching for transfer: Effects on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(2), 293-305.

111
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Ganske, L. (1981). Note-taking: A significant and integral part of learning environments.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(3), 155-175.

Garcia-Mila, M. (2007). Developmental change in notetaking during scientific inquiry. International

Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 1035-1058.

Hayes, D. S., Kelley, S. B., & Mandel, M. (1986). Media differences in children's story synopses:
Radio and television contrasted. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5), 341-346.

Jacobson, M. J. (2008). A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: Theory,

research, and learning emerging scientific perspectives. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 56(1), 5-28.

Pezdek, K. (1987). Memory for pictures: A life-span study of the role of visual detail. Child
Development, 58(3), 807-815.

Robinson, D. H., Robinson, S. L., & Katayama, A. D. (1999). When words are represented in memory
like pictures: Evidence for spatial encoding of study materials. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24(1), 38-54.

Serafino, K., & Cicchelli, T. (2003). Cognitive theories, prior knowledge, and anchored instruction
on mathematical problem solving and transfer. Education and Urban Society, 36(1), 79-93.

Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by
means of active graphical representation. Learning & Instruction, 13(3), 191-203.

Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the
transfer of mathematics skills a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23-41.

3.4 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Butterfield, E. C., & Nelson, G. D. (1989). Theory and practice of teaching for transfer. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 37(3), 5-38.

Edyburn, D. (2006). Cognitive prostheses for students with mild disabilities: Is this what assistive
technology looks like. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 62-65.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., & Paulsen, K. (2002). Hot math: Promoting
mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 35(1), 70-73.

Hughes, C. A., & Suritsky, S. K. (1993). Notetaking skills and strategies for students with learning
disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 38(1), 7-11.

112
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

McKeough, A. (1995). Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalizations in learning. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pea, R. D. (1988). Putting knowledge to use. In R. S. Nickerson & P. R. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology
in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 167-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1998). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22-32.

Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strategies that
improve children's memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 3-32.

Ritchie, D., & Karge, B. D. (1996). Making information memorable: Enhanced knowledge retention
and recall through the elaboration process. Preventing School Failure, 41(1), 28-33.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanism of a
neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113-142.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Zemitzsch, A., & Warner, M. W. (1993). The visual imagery strategy.
Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas.

Seidel, R. J., Perencevich, K. C., & Kett, A. L. (2005). From principles of learning to strategies for
instruction: Empirically based ingredients to guide instructional development. New York, NY: Springer.

Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Problem-solving schema with question generation for
comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 166-186.

Action & Expression Research

4.1: Vary the methods for response and navigation

Most of the experimental studies on providing options in the mode of physical response are
concentrated on the improvements to learning made possible by providing keyboarding and voice
recognition options for several types of students: typically achieving students, students who have
high incidence learning disabilities (e.g. dyslexia) or students who have specific writing disabilities
(e.g. dysgraphia). In contrast, there are no experimental research studies that show evidence of
improved learning for students with severe motor disabilities. This is remarkable since the
advantages of physical and motor options (e.g. expanded keyboards, single switch devices, or
other assistive technologies, etc.) for students with physical disabilities are typically considered
the most enabling of options. These advantages are undoubtedly considered so self-evident that
adequate experimental studies – on learning - have not been conducted. Scholarly reviews and
opinion pieces are primarily limited to reports on comparative techniques and technical advances
for mobility and dexterity rather than improvements in learning.

113
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

4.1 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of
word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69-93.

Crealock, C., & Sitko, M. (1990). Comparison between computer and handwriting technologies in
writing training with learning disabled students. International Journal of Special Education, 5(2),
173-183.

Dalton, D. W., & Hannafin, M. J. (1987). The effects of word processing on written composition.
Journal of Educational Research, 80(6), 338-342.

Dalton, B. D., Herbert, M., & Deysher, S. (2003). Scaffolding students' response to digital literature
with embedded strategy supports: The role of audio-recording vs. writing student response
options. 53rd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference.

Geoffrion, L. D. (1982). The feasibility of word processing for students with writing handicaps.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 11(3), 239-250.

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-
analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1-24.

Hetzroni, O. E., & Shrieber, B. (2004). Word processing as an assistive technology tool for
enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 143.

Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the
written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 159-174.

Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and
students' ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 44-49.

Jones, I. (1994). The effect of a word processor on the written composition of second-grade pupils.
Computers in the Schools, 11(2), 43-54.

Joram, E. (1992). The effects of revising with a word processor on written composition. Research in
the Teaching of English, 26(2), 167-193.

Lange, A. A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-
level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13-22.

Langone, J. (1996). The differential effects of a typing tutor and microcomputer-based word
processing on the writing samples of elementary students with behavior disorders. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 141-158.

114
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W., Ashton, T. M., & Kieley, C. L. (1998). Word processing tools for students
with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies to increase text entry speed. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(2), 95-108.

MacArthur, C. A. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on
the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
21(2), 151-166.

MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three
methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special
Education, 21(3), 22-42.

Owston, R. D. (1992). The effects of word processing on students. Research in the Teaching of
English, 26(3), 249-276.

Quinlan, T. (2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties:
Improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 337-346.

Roberts, K. D. (2005). The use of voice recognition software as a compensatory strategy for
postsecondary education students receiving services under the category of learning disabled.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 49-64.

Rosenbluth, G. S., & Reed, W. M. (1992). The effects of writing-process-based instruction and word
processing on remedial and accelerated 11th graders. Computers in Human Behavior, 8(1), 71-95.

Stoner, J. B., Beck, A. R., Bock, S. J., Hickey, K., Kosuwan, K., & Thompson, J. R. (2006). The
effectiveness of the picture exchange communication system with nonspeaking adults. Remedial &
Special Education, 27(3), 154-165.

Wetzel, K. (1996). Speech-recognizing computers: A written-communication tool for students

with learning disabilities?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 371-380.

Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Niday, D. M. (1996). The influence of student experience
with word processors on the quality of essays written for a direct writing assessment. Assessing
Writing, 3(2), 123-147.

4.1 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Access Board. (2001). Section 508: New federal standards. Closing the Gap, 20(1), 1-34.

Balagopal, S., & Young, P. (Dec. 2001/Jan. 2002). Increasing independence in inclusive settings.
Closing the Gap, 20(5), 1-16.

Duerstock, B. S. (2006). Accessible microscopy workstation for students and scientists with
mobility impairments. Assistive Technology : The Official Journal of RESNA, 18(1), 34-45.

115
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

George, C. L., Schaff, J. L., & Jeffs, T. (2005). Physical access in today's schools: Empowerment
through assistive technology. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special
education technology research and practice (pp. 355-377). Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by
Design, Inc.

Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Parette, H. P., & Center, S. E. A. T. (2007). Supporting struggling writers using
technology: Evidence-based instruction and decision-making, National Center for Technology
Innovation.

Quenneville, J. (2001). Tech tools for students with learning disabilities: Infusion into inclusive
classrooms. Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 167-170.

Sanderson, A. (1999). Voice recognition software. A panacea for dyslexic learners or a frustrating
hindrance? Dyslexia, 5, 114-118.

Sitko, M. C., Laine, C. J., & Sitko, C. (2005). Writing tools: Technology and strategies for struggling
writers. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology
research and practice (pp. 571-598). Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by Design.

Wadsworth, D., Donna, F., & Knight, D. (1999). Preparing the inclusion classroom for students with
special physical and health needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(3), 170.

4.2: Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies

The research evidence in this category is minimal and suffers, undoubtedly, from the same
apparent “face validity” of the advantages in "response and navigation.” For students with physical
and motor disabilities, the advantages of providing alternative tools and assistive technologies are
so evident that researchers have not adequately researched their actual advantages for learning.
The available research is also widely scattered in terms of the types of options provided (e.g.,
switch options, overlays, alternative keyboards, etc.). Scholarly reviews are devoted most often to
highlighting best practices and comparative techniques.

4.2 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review
and synthesis of the literature. TAM Board Members, 21(2), 47-64.

Lange, A. A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-
level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13-22.

Mechling, L. C. (2006). Comparison of the effects of three approaches on the frequency of stimulus
activations, via a single switch, by students with profound intellectual disabilities. The Journal of
Special Education, 40(2), 94.

116
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot
surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1),
15-27.

Stoner, J. B., Beck, A. R., Bock, S. J., Hickey, K., Kosuwan, K., & Thompson, J. R. (2006). The
effectiveness of the picture exchange communication system with nonspeaking adults. Remedial &
Special Education, 27(3), 154-165.

4.2 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Behrmann, M., & Schaff, J. (2001). Assisting educators with assistive technology: Enabling children
to achieve independence in living and learning. Children and Families, 42(3), 24-28.

Brown, M. R. (2000). Access, instruction, and barriers: Technology issues facing students at risk.
Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 182-192.

Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino Reid, L. & Vanderheiden, G. Web accessibility guidelines 2.0;
guideline 4.1 compatible: Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive
technologies. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from [Link]

George, C. L., Schaff, J. L., & Jeffs, T. (2005). Physical access in today's schools: Empowerment
through assistive technology. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special
education technology research and practice (pp. 355-377). Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by
Design, Inc.

Judge, S. (2006). Constructing an assistive technology toolkit for young children: Views from the
field. Journal of Special Education Technology. 21(4), 17-24.

Lee, C. M. (1999). Learning disabilities and assistive technology: An emerging way to touch the future.
Amherst, MA: McGowan.

Lewis, R. B. (1998). Assistive technology and learning disabilities: Today's realities and tomorrow's
promises. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 16-26, 54.

Lodge, J. (2000). Will the overlay board survive in the mainstream primary classroom? Closing the
Gap, 18(6), 16-17.

Lueck, A. H., Dote-Kwan, J., Senge, J. C., & Clarke, L. (2001). Selecting assistive technology for
greater independence. RE: View, 33(1), 21-33.

Male, M. (2002). Technology for inclusion: Meeting the special needs of all students (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.

McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2007). Assistive technology in the reading clinic: Its emerging
potential. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 140-145.

117
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Newton, D. A., Case, D. A., & Bauder, D. K. (2002). No- and low-tech tools to access the general
curriculum. Closing the Gap, 21(4), 1-36.

Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Parette, H. P., & Center, S. E. A. T. (2007). Supporting struggling writers using
technology: Evidence-based instruction and decision-making, National Center for Technology
Innovation.

Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with
learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 27-40.

Research Center, Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd). Using assistive
technologies to support writing. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from
[Link]

Rose, D., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistive technology and universal design
for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of
special education technology research and practice (pp. 507-518). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by
Design.

Thompson, T. (2003). The interdependent roles of all players in making technology accessible.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 21-28.

Zabala, J., Blunt, M., Carl, D., Davis, S., Deterding, C., Foss, T., et al. (2000). Quality indicators for
assistive technology services in school settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 25-
36.

5.1: Use multiple media for communication

Learning to communicate effectively through writing is one of the most demanding challenges for
any student, but for some students learning to write raises special barriers or impediments. The
experimental studies collected here provide evidence for the benefits of offering alternative
media for expression for some or all students. The advantages of using a broader range of media –
including word-processing, audio recording, video or film, multimedia, images, drawing, animation,
graphics – are that building fluency with a wider range of options prepares all students better for
the communication skills they will need in the 21st century and provides valuable alternatives for
those students who have persistent difficulties in written expression. The scholarly reviews and
opinion pieces provide additional arguments for why it is important to expand the media available
in our classrooms.

5.1 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of
word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69-93.

Daiute, C., & Morse, F. (1994). Access to knowledge and expression: Multimedia writing tools for
students with diverse needs and strengths. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(3), 221-256.

118
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Dalton, B., Tivnan, T., Riley, M. K., Rawson, P., & Dias, D. (1995). Revealing competence: Fourth-
grade students with and without learning disabilities show what they know on paper-and-pencil
and hands-on performance assessments. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10(4), 197-214.

Dalton, B. D., Herbert, M., & Deysher, S. (2003, December). Scaffolding students’ response to
digital literature with embedded strategy supports: The role of audio-recording vs. writing student
response options. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the National Reading
Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.

Dimitriadi, Y. (2001). Evaluating the use of multimedia authoring with dyslexic learners: A case
study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 265-275.

Garthwait, A. (2004). Use of hypermedia in one middle school: A qualitative field study. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(3), 219-243.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A
meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 475-500.

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-
analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1-24.

Gouzouasis, P. (1994). Multimedia constructions of children: An exploratory study. Journal of

Computing in Childhood Education, 5(3), 273-284.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Journal Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

Henry, A. (2002). Computer-graphics and the literary construct: A learning method. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 33(1), 7-15.

MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three
methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special
Education, 21(3), 22-42.

Morocco, C. C., Dalton, B., & Tivnan, T. (1992). The impact of computer-supported writing
instruction on fourth-grade students with and without learning disabilities. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 8(1), 87-113.

Parker, D. (1999). You've read the book, now make the film: Moving image media, print literacy
and narrative. English in Education, 33(1), 24-35.

Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (2000). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia
book reviews to increase elementary students' independent reading. Reading Research Quarterly,
35(3), 389-419.

119
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Riddle, E.M. (1995). Communication through multimedia in an elementary classroom. East

Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 384 346). Retrieved July 16, 2009, from ERIC database.

van Essen, G., & Hamaker, C. (1990). Using self-generated drawings to solve arithmetic word
problems. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 301-312.

Vincent, J. (2001). The role of visually rich technology in facilitating children's writing. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 242-250.

Wilson, M. (1999). Student-generated multimedia presentations: Tools to help build and

communicate mathematical understanding. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, 18(2), 145-156.

5.1 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Atlas, J. C. (2007). Lights, camera, reading. Reading Today, 24(4), 44-44.

Church, W., Gravel, B., & Rogers, C. (2007). Teaching parabolic motion with stop-action
animations. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(5), 861-867.

Davis, D. (2000). Eye Yummies: Computer graphics and alternative computer access. Closing the
Gap, 19(4), 1-6-7, 44.

Dillner, M. (2001). Using media flexibly to compose and communicate. Reading Online, 5(1).
Retrieved February 5, 2009, from
[Link]

Eagleton, M. (2002). Making text come to life on the computer: Toward an understanding of
hypermedia literacy. Reading Online, 6(1). Retrieved February 5, 2009, from
[Link]

Hibbing, A. N., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual
images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. Reading Teacher, 56(8),
758.

Ikan, P. A., & Conderman, G. (1996). Lights, camera, action!: A language arts activity for middle
school students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(4), 69-71.

Kendrick, M., & Mckay, R. (2004). Drawings as an alternative way of understanding young
children's constructions of literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(1), 109-128.

Labbo, L. D. (2004). From writing workshop to multimedia workshop. Language Arts, 82(2), 119-
120.

120
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Morse, T. (2003). Enhancing special education students' multiple literacies through multimedia
activities. Journal of Reading Education, 28(2), 39-40.

Short, K. G., Kauffman, G., & Kahn, L. H. (2000). 'I just need to draw': Responding to literature
across multiple sign systems. Reading Teacher, 54(2), 160-171.

Strangman, N. (2002). Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad: Bringing a second-grade
social studies curriculum online. Reading Online, 5(9). Retrieved February 5, 2009, from
[Link]

Strangman, N. (2003). Literary and visual literacy for all: A fourth-grade study of Alice in
Wonderland. Reading Online, 6(7). Retrieved February 5, 2009, from
[Link]

Sumrell, J. (2005). Documenting children’s learning thought multi-media projects. Closing the Gap,
24(4), 1-6.

Wissick, C. A. (1996). Multimedia: Enhancing instruction for students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(5), 494-503.

Yerrick, R. K., & Ross, D. L. (2001). I read, I learn, iMovie: Strategies for developing literacy in the
context of inquiry-based science instruction. Reading Online, 5(1). Retrieved February 5, 2009,
from [Link]/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/yerrick/inde....

5.2: Use multiple tools for construction and composition

Many students have difficulties mastering the basic tools for communication and problem solving
that are most commonly used in classrooms: pencils, pens, paintbrushes, chalk, rulers, and so forth.
The difficulties are not limited to the physical use of these tools but to their skillful incorporation
into communication and expression. The experimental studies included below examine the utility
of providing the more flexible, and more contemporary, options that should be available in 21st
century classrooms and workplaces: word processors that include spellcheckers and grammar
checkers, calculators, word prediction programs, speech recognition software, etc. This research
examines the utility of these options for students who struggle with fluent expression - e.g.
language-based learning disabilities, executive function disorders – and for typically achieving
students as [Link] scholarly reviews and opinion pieces explore many of the same tools for
expression as listed in the experimental studies; however, the scholarly reviews and opinion
pieces provide more classroom-based perspectives on providing options in the tools available to
students.

5.2 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Bridgeman, B., Harvey, A., & Braswell, J. (1995). Effects of calculator use on scores on a test of
mathematical reasoning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32(4), 323-340.

121
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Center for Implementing Technology in Education. K-12 calculator technology. Retrieved July 16,
2009, from [Link]

Crealock, C., & Sitko, M. (1990). Comparison between computer and handwriting technologies in
writing training with learning disabled students. International Journal of Special Education, 5(2),
173-183.

Dalton, D. W., & Hannafin, M. J. (1987). The effects of word processing on written composition.
Journal of Educational Research, 80(6), 338-342.

Dalton, B. D., Herbert, M., & Deysher, S. (2003, December). Scaffolding students’ response to
digital literature with embedded strategy supports: The role of audio-recording vs. writing student
response options. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the National Reading
Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.

Ellington, A. J. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students’ achievement and

attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
34(5), 433-463.

Figueredo, L., & Varnhagen, C. K. (2006). Spelling and grammar checkers: Are they intrusive?
British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 721-732.

Geoffrion, L. D. (1982). The feasibility of word processing for students with writing handicaps.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 11(3), 239-250.

Gerlach, G. J. (1991). Using an electronic speller to correct misspelled words and verify correctly
spelled words. Reading Improvement, 28(3), 188-194.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A
meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 475-500.

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-
analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1-24.

Graham, A. T., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2000). Building a versatile understanding of algebraic variables
with a graphic calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(3), 265-282.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Journal Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

Graham, T., & Smith, P. (2004). An investigation into the use of graphics calculators with pupils in
key stage [Link] Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(2), 227-
237.

122
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Gupta, R. (1998). Can spelling checkers help the novice writer? British Journal of Educational
Technology, 29(3), 255-266.

Hembree, R., & Dessart, D. J. (1986). Effects of hand-held calculators in precollege mathematics
education: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(2), 83-99.

Hetzroni, O. E., & Shrieber, B. (2004). Word processing as an assistive technology tool for
enhancing academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 143-154.

Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the
written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 159-174.

Innes Helsel, F.K., Hitchcock, J.H., Miller, G., Malinow, A., Murray, E., & the Center for
Implementing Technology in Education. (2006, April). Identifying evidence-based, promising and
emerging practices that use screen-based and calculator technology to teach mathematics in grades K-
12: A research synthesis. Paper presented for the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from
[Link]

Jones, I. (1994). The effect of a word processor on the written composition of second-grade pupils.
Computers in the Schools, 11(2), 43-54.

Joram, E. (1992). The effects of revising with a word processor on written composition. Research in
the Teaching of English, 26(2), 167-193.

Kurth, R. J. (1987). Using word processing to enhance revision strategies during student writing
activities. Educational Technology, 27(1), 13-19.

Lange, A. A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-
level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13-22.

Langone, J. (1996). The differential effects of a typing tutor and microcomputer-based word
processing on the writing samples of elementary students with behavior disorders. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 141-158.

Lewis, R. B., Ashton, T. M., Haapa, B., Kieley, C. L., & Fielden, C. (1999). Improving the writing skills
of students with learning disabilities: Are word processors with spelling and grammar checkers
useful? Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 87-98.

Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W., Ashton, T. M., & Kieley, C. L. (1998). Word processing tools for students
with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies to increase text entry speed. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(2), 95-108.

123
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance
comparisons and impact on spelling. Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 35-57.

MacArthur, C. A. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on
the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
21(2), 151-166.

MacArthur, C. A. (1999). Word prediction for students with severe spelling problems. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 22(3), 158-172.

MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for
students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273-301.

McNamara, D. S. (1995). Effects of prior knowledge on the generation advantage: Calculators

versus calculation to learn simple multiplication. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 307-318.

McNaughton, D. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning disabilities: Integrating computer
and strategy use. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(1), 16-28.

Morocco, C. C., Dalton, B., & Tivnan, T. (1992). The impact of computer-supported writing
instruction on fourth-grade students with and without learning disabilities. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 8(1), 87-113.

Murray, B., Silver-Pacuilla, H., Innes Helsel, F., & the Center for Implementing Technology in
Education. (2007). Improving basic mathematics instruction: Promising technology resources for
students with special [Link] in Action, 2(5). Retrieved July 16, 2009, from
[Link]

Orton-Flynn, S., & Richards, C. C. J. (2000). The design and evaluation of an interactive calculator
for children. Digital Creativity, 11(4), 205-217.

Owston, R. D. (1992). The effects of word processing on students. Research in the Teaching of
English, 26(3), 249-276.

Quesada, A. R., & Maxwell, M. E. (1994). The effects of using graphing calculators to enhance
college students' performance in precalculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(2), 205-215.

Quinlan, T. (2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties:
Improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 337-346.

Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of
postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 141-158.

Roberts, D. M. (1980). The impact of electronic calculators on educational performance. Review of

Educational Research, 50(1), 71-98.

124
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Roberts, K. D. (2005). The use of voice recognition software as a compensatory strategy for
postsecondary education students receiving services under the category of learning disabled.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 49-64.

Rosenbluth, G. S., & Reed, W. M. (1992). The effects of writing-process-based instruction and word
processing on remedial and accelerated 11th graders. Computers in Human Behavior, 8(1), 71-95.

Tumlin, J., & Heller, K. W. (2004). Using word prediction software to increase typing fluency with
students with physical disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(3), 5-14.

Wetzel, K. (1996). Speech-recognizing computers: A written-communication tool for students

with learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 371-380.

Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Niday, D. M. (1996). The influence of student experience
with word processors on the quality of essays written for a direct writing assessment. Assessing
Writing, 3(2), 123-147.

Zhang, Y. (2000). Technology and the writing skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 467-478.

5.2 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Dalton, B., Winbury, N., & Morocco, C. C. (1990). "If you could just push a button": Two fourth
grade learning disabled students learn to use a spelling checker. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 10(4), 170-191.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing difficulties for
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 74-84.

Huinker, D. A. (2002). Calculators as learning tools for young children. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 8(6), 316-321.

Isaacson, S., & Gleason, M. M. (1997). Mechanical obstacles to writing: What can teachers do to
help students with learning problems? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(3), 188-194.

Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2006). Cognitive tools and mindtools for collaborative learning.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 199-209.

Longo, B., Reiss, D., Selfe, C. L., & Young, A. (2003). The poetics of computers: Composing
relationships with technology. Computers & Composition, 20(1), 97-118.

Macarthur, C. (1999). Overcoming barriers to writing: Computer support for basic writing skills.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 169-192.

MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 344-354.

125
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Onosko, J. J., & Jorgenson, C. M. (1998). Unit and lesson planning in the inclusive classroom:
Maximizing learning opportunities for all students. In C. M. Jorgenson (Ed.), Restructuring high
schools for all students: Taking inclusion to the next level (pp. 71-105). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.

Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Parette, H. P., & Center, S. E. A. T. (2007). Supporting struggling writers using
technology: Evidence-based instruction and decision-making. Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Technology Innovation.

Quenneville, J. (2001). Tech tools for students with learning disabilities: Infusion into inclusive
classrooms. Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 167-170.

Sanderson, A. (1999). Voice recognition software. A panacea for dyslexic learners or a frustrating
hindrance? Dyslexia, 5(2), 114-118.

Sitko, M. C., Laine, C. J., & Sitko, C. (2005). Writing tools: Technology and strategies for struggling
writers. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology
research and practice (pp. 571-598). Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by Design.

St John, D., & Lapp, D. A. (2000). Developing numbers and operations with affordable handheld
technology. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(3), 162-164.

Vernon, A. (2000). Computerized grammar checkers 2000: Capabilities, limitations, and

pedagogical possibilities. Computers and Composition, 17(3), 329-349.

Williams, S. C. (2002). How speech-feedback and word-prediction software can help students
write. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 72-78.

5.3: Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and performance
To develop competence and fluency in expression or problem solving requires a long and guided
apprenticeship for any learner, and a much longer or more supported apprenticeship for some.
The experimental studies listed below examine the advantages of providing various scaffolds and
supports during that apprenticeship.
They include features in two main categories:
1. models and demonstrations that guide successful practice (including exemplars, worked
examples, animated agents or human mentors, direct instruction)
2. scaffolds that support the novice but that can be gradually released as individuals are
ready for independence (e.g. checklists, templates, mnemonic aids, etc.).
The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces highlight the historical and pedagogical role of
apprenticeships and their associated supports in developing independence.

5.3 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

126
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving
problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(4), 774-783.

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.

Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional
principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181-214.

Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia
learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
30(1), 117-139.

Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: Using
interactive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational
Psychology Review, 19(3), 375-386.

Bui, Y. N., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2006). The effects of a strategic writing program for
students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive fifth-grade classes. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 21(4), 244-260.

Chi, M. T. H., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanation. In L. Resnick (Ed.),
Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, (pp. 251-282). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia
educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428-434.

Craig, S. D., Graesser, A. C., Sullins, J., & Gholson, B. (2004). Affect and learning: An exploratory
look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 241-250.

Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through
scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo,
R.D. Kieffer & D. Reinking (Ed.), International handbook of literacy and technology volume II (pp. 75-
92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Final report to
the U.S. department of education. Peabody: CAST.

Dalton, B. D., Herbert, M., & Deysher, S. (2003, December). Scaffolding students’ response to
digital literature with embedded strategy supports: The role of audio-recording vs. writing student
response options. Presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference,
Scottsdale, AZ.

127
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Danoff, B. (1993). Incorporating strategy instruction within the writing process in the regular
classroom: Effects on the writing of students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 25(3), 295-322.

Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2007). Multi-scaffolding environment: An analysis of scaffolding

and its impact on cognitive load and problem-solving ability. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 37(2), 107-129.

Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the
comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62-77.

Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the
role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education, 49(3), 677-690.

Dyck, N., & Sunbye, N. (1988). The effects of text explicitness on story understanding and recall by
learning disabled children. LD Research, 3(2), 68-77.

Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stoner, M. (2006). Using a visual tool to increase adjectives in the written
language of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(2),
95-109.

Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1989). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities
to generate and use task-specific strategies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(2), 108-119.

Englert, C. S., Yong, Z., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N. Y., & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the writing
of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an internet-based technology to
improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(1), 9-29.

Etheris, A. I. (2004). Computer-supported collaborative problem solving and anchored instruction

in a mathematics classroom: An exploratory study. International Journal of Learning Technology,
1(1), 16-39.

Fisher, J. B., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1995). Searching for validated inclusive practices: A
review of the literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(4), 1-20.

Gambrell, L. B., & Bales, R. (1986). Mental imagery and the comprehension-monitoring
performance of fourth and fifth grade poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 454-464.

Gaytan, J. (2006). Type II applications: Using on-demand help features effectively in interactive
learning environments: A literature review. Computers in the Schools, 23(1), 163-172.

Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning
disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(3), 162-170.

128
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Journal Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students
with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 402-412.

Horton, S., Lovitt, T., & Christensen, S. (1991). Notetaking from textbooks: Effects of a columnar
format on three categories of secondary students. Exceptionality: A Research Journal, 2(1), 18-40.

Idol-Maestas, L. (1985). Getting ready to read: Guided probing for poor comprehenders. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 8, 243-254.

Jacobson, M. J. (2008). A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: Theory,

research, and learning emerging scientific perspectives. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 56(1), 5-28.

Lenz, B. K., Ehren, B. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2005). The content literacy continuum: A school reform
framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6),
60-63.

Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning
environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5-21.

Lusk, M. M., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of
embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 21(6), 747-764.

MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A
hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 150-159.

McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for
active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 222-233.

McNamara, D. S., O'Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students'
reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147-171.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of
scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Sciences, 15(2),
153-181.

Mechling, L. (2005). The effect of instructor-created video programs to teach students with
disabilities: A literature review. TAM Board Members, 20(2), 25-36.

129
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer Jr, R. L. (2008). Technology and
reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for
policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 6-58.

Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in
computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated
pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.

Moreno, R., & Flowerday, T. (2006). Students’ choice of animated pedagogical agents in science
learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 31(2), 186-207.

Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in
computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated
pedagogical agents? Cognition & Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback when
using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 27(4), 309-323.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(1), 117-175.

Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1999). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-640). White
Plains, NY: Longman.

Pol, H. J., Harskamp, E. G., & Suhre, C. J. M. (2008). The effect of the timing of instructional support
in a computer-supported problem-solving program for students in secondary physics education.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1156-1178.

Prendinger, H., Ma, C., & Ishizuka, M. (2007). Eye movements as indices for the utility of life-like
interface agents: A pilot study. Interacting with Computers, 19(2), 281-292.

Reinking, D., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer mediated text on measures of reading
comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 536-552.

Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem
solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1),
153-22.

Rosenshine, B. (1997). Advances in research on instruction. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui & D.

Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 197-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

130
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Rosenshine, B., & & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.

Ryokai, K., Vaucelle, C., & Cassell, J. (2003). Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy
learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 195-208.

Scanlon, D., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in
secondary inclusive classrooms? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(1), 41-57.

Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-
school students' attitude toward mathematics and mathematics instruction using a computer-
based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(2), 165-195.

Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind:
Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.

Wilson, R. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed instruction on the

multiplication performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 29(4), 382-390.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Zydney, J. M. (2008). Cognitive tools for scaffolding students defining an ill-structured problem.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(4), 353-385.

5.3 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Burke, M. D., Hagan, S. L., & Grossen, B. (1998). What curricular designs and strategies
accommodate diverse learners? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 34-38.

Chen, D., & Hung, D. (2004). Augmentation in learning: Supports which do not fade away.
Education Technology, 44(4), 60-63.

Clark, F. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., & Warner, M. M. (1984). Visual imagery
and self-questioning: Strategies to improve comprehension of written material. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 17(3), 145-149.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for
consumers and designers of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of
reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in
honor of Robert [Link], NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

131
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Corey, R. (1995). Words from music: How Mozart and Mangione inspire writers. Quarterly of the
National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 17(3), 26-29.

Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2007). Reading as thinking: Integrating strategy instruction in a
universally designed digital literacy environment. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading Comprehension
Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies, (pp. 421-439). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc..

Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1989). An instructional model for teaching students how to
learn. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems:
Enhancing instructional outcomes for all students (pp. 391-411). Bethesda, MD: National Association
of School Psychologists.

Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction (pp. 28–41). New York: Guilford.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Scaffolded writing: A gradual release approach to writing instruction. New
York: Scholastic.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2003). Writing instruction for struggling adolescent readers: A gradual
release model. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(5), 396-407.

Gallego, M. A., Duran, G. Z., & Scanlon, D. J. (1989). Interactive teaching and learning: Facilitating
learning disabled students' transition from novice to expert. Literacy Theory and Research, 311-319.

Gillette, Y. (2001). Pictures to print: A software scaffold to written literacy. Journal of Head Trauma
Rehabilitation, 16(5), 484-497.

Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension
strategies through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225-234.

Hudson, P., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., & Miller, T. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the
performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 8(2), 106-126.

Isaacson, S., & Gleason, M. M. (1997). Mechanical obstacles to writing: What can teachers do to
help students with learning problems? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(3), 188-194.

Jones, B. F. (1986). Quality and equality through cognitive instruction. Educational Leadership,
43(7), 4-11.

Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse
learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

132
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of
academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning
companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596.

Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with
cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239-264.

McTighe, J., & O’Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning. Educational Leadership,
63(3), 10-17.

Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2005). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with
disabilities in standards-based reform. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Paris, S. G. (1986). Teaching children to guide their reading and learning. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.), The
contexts of school-based literacy (pp. 115-130). New York, NY: Random House.

Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding
design framework for software to support science inquiry. Scaffolding: A Special Issue of the Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.

Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and

problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.

Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. G., & Meloth, M. S. (1984). What to be direct about in direct instruction in
reading: Content-only versus process-into-content. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.), The contexts of school-
based literacy (pp. 79-95). New York, NY: Random House.

Rose, D. H. (1995). Apprenticeship and exploration: A new approach to literacy instruction.

Scholastic literacy research paper, 6, 1-8.

Schumaker, J. B., Denton, P. H., & Deshler, D. D. (1984). The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence, KS:
The University of Kansas.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Nolan, S. M., & Alley, G. R. (1994). The self-questioning strategy.
Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Zemitzsch, A., & Warner, M. W. (1993). The visual imagery strategy.
Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas.

Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Problem-solving schema with question generation for
comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 166-86.

133
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Sitko, M. C., Laine, C. J., & Sitko, C. (2005). Writing tools: Technology and strategies for struggling
writers. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology
research and practice (pp. 571-598). Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by Design.

Stevens, R., & Palacio-Cayetano, J. (2003). Design and performance frameworks for constructing
problem-solving simulations. Cell Biology Education, 2(3), 162-179.

Swanson, H. L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students with learning
disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(2), 1-15.

Tarver, S. G. (1996). Direct instruction. In W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues
confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nd ed.). (pp. 143-165). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Veletsianos, G. (2007). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent:

Considering contextual relevance and aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4),
373-377.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1964). Thought and language. Annals of Dyslexia, 14(1), 97-98.

6.1: Guide appropriate goal-setting

Learning can be inaccessible when it requires effective and realistic goal-setting and where there
are no options for individuals who differ in such executive functions. Long term and even short
terms tasks can raise barriers to learning without the proper embedded support for such goal-
setting. The experimental and quantitative evidence listed here indicates the advantages of
supports - such as highly explicit goal-setting instruction, varied models, and embedded prompts
and scaffolds to estimate effort and task difficulty – for this facet of executive functions. The
scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide additional arguments for why it is important to
supports students in setting their goals. Although some of these articles are dated, they
nonetheless continue to provide guidance on supporting effective goal-setting.

6.1 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Butler, D. L. (1997). The roles of goal setting and self-monitoring in students' self-regulated
engagement in tasks. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997).

Earley, P. C. (1985). Influence of information choice and task complexity upon goal acceptance,
performance and personal goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 481-491.

Fleming, V. M. (2002). Improving students' exam performance by introducing study strategies and
goal setting. Teaching of Psychology, 29(2), 115-119.

Fuchs, L., Butterworth, J., & Fuchs, D. (1989). Effects of ongoing curriculum-based measurement
on student awareness of goals and progress. Education and Treatment of Children, 12(1), 63-72.

134
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1997). Effects of task-
focused goals on low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities. American
Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 513-543.

Fuchs, L. S., Bahr, C. M., & Rieth, H. J. (1989). Effects of goal structures and performance
contingencies on the math performance of adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22(9), 554-560.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Journal Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992). Improving the compositions of
students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting.
Exceptional Children, 58(4), 322-334.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral
treatment. Confirmation from meta-analysis. The American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181-1209.

Meltzer, L. (2007). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback when
using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 27(4), 309-323.

Punnett, B. J. (1986). Goal setting and performance among elementary school students. Journal of
Educational Research, 80(1), 40-42.

Sachs, A. (1984). Accessing scripts before reading the story. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(3), 226-
228.

Schunk, D. H. (1985). Participation in goal setting: Effects on self-efficacy and skills of learning-
disabled children. Journal of Special Education, 19(3), 307-317.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-382.

Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy
instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305.

Troia, G. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Teaching students with learning disabilities to
mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 235-252.

135
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Walberg, H. J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H. C. Waxman, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions
for teaching practice and research (pp. 75-104). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen Publishing Corporation.

Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching
strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 415-425.

Wong, B. Y., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students
with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
29(2), 197-212.

6.1 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Anderson, A. (1997). Learning strategies in physical education: Self-talk, imagery, and goal-setting.
The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(1), 30-35.

Carroll, J., & Christenson, C. N. K. (1995). Teaching and learning about student goal setting in a
fifth-grade classroom. Language Arts, 72(1), 42-49.

Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2004). Executive skills in children and adolescents: A practical guide to
assessment and intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S.
Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52-72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lemos, M. S. (1996). Students' and teachers' goals in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(2),
151-171.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Rose, D., & Rose, K. (2007). Executive function processes: A curriculum-based intervention. In L.
Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in education (pp. 287-308). New York: Guilford Press.

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and
self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.

6.2: Support planning and strategy development

Learning can be inaccessible when it requires planning and strategy development, and where
there are no options for individuals who differ in such executive functions. Young children, older
students in a new domain, or any student with one of the disabilities that compromise executive
functions (e.g. ADHD, ADD, Autism Spectrum Disorders) often are weak at planning and strategy
development and impulsive trial and error dominates their learning. The experimental studies
collected here suggest a variety of options to help students become more planful and strategic –
explicit strategy instruction for planning and revising, concept mapping, etc. The scholarly reviews

136
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

and expert opinions provide a more classroom-based perspective on effectively supporting

students’ planning and strategy development.

6.2 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Chalk, J. C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2005). The effects of self-regulated strategy
development on the writing process for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 75-88.

De La Paz, S. (2007). Managing cognitive demands for writing: Comparing the effects of
instructional components in strategy instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(3), 249-266.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Teaching students with
learning and writing disabilities to compose persuasive and expository essays. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 20(3), 227-248.

Englert, C. S., Manalo, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better on the computer: The effects of
technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers' composition. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 19(1), 5-22.

Englert, C. S., Wu, X., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of
students through technology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(3), 184-198.

Englert, C. S., Yong, Z., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N. Y., & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the writing
of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an internet-based technology to
improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(1), 9-29.

Fleming, V. M. (2002). Improving students' exam performance by introducing study strategies and
goal setting. Teaching of Psychology, 29(2), 115-119.

Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing
difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 223-234.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and
self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207-241.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Journal Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992). Improving the compositions of
students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting.
Exceptional Children, 58(4), 322-334.

Graves, A. (1990). The effects of procedural facilitation on the story composition of learning
disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5(2), 88-93.

137
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation
of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer
support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295-340.

Meltzer, L. (2007). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.

Montague, M. (1991). Planning, procedural facilitation, and narrative composition of junior high
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(4), 219-224.

Quinlan, T. (2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties:
Improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 337-346.

Rademacher, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1996). Development and validation of a
classroom assignment routine for inclusive settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(3), 163-177.

Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing story-writing ability through self-regulated strategy development:

Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 291-305.

Saddler, B., & Asaro, K. (2007). Increasing story quality through planning and revising: Effects on
young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30(4), 223-234.

Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Preventing writing difficulties: The effects
of planning strategy instruction on the writing performance of struggling writers. Exceptionality,
12(1), 3-17.

Sturm, J. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer-generated

concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2), 124-139.

Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy
instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305.

Troia, G. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Teaching students with learning disabilities to
mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 235-252.

Wong, B. Y., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students
with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
29(2), 197-212.

Zipprich, M. A. (1995). Teaching web making as a guided planning tool to improve student
narrative writing. Remedial and Special Education, 16(1), 3-15.

6.2 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

138
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools
for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing
meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(1), 65-77.

Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2004). Executive skills in children and adolescents: A practical guide to
assessment and intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers:
Theoretical and programmatic research from the center on accelerating student learning. The
Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19-33.

MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 344-354.

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of
classroom strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 301-342.

Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Rankin, J., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the
instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145-160.

Rankin, V. (1999). The thoughtful researcher: Teaching the research process to middle school students.
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc..

Rose, D., & Rose, K. (2007). Executive function processes: A curriculum-based intervention. In L.
Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in education (pp. 287-308). New York: Guilford Press.

6.3: Facilitate managing information and resources

Learning can be inaccessible when it requires the ability to manage information and resources, and
where there are no options for individuals who differ in such executive functions. Wherever
executive functions or working memory capacity are not construct-relevant in a lesson, it is
important to provide a variety of internal scaffolds and external organizational aids to keep
information organized and “in mind.” The research listed here suggests the effectiveness of
strategies such as graphic and cognitive organizers, concept maps, explicit instruction in how to
evaluate information, and templates for note-taking. The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces
provide more classroom-based perspectives on facilitating students' management of information
and resources.

6.3 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

Alvermann, D. E., & Boothby, P. R. (1986). Children's transfer of graphic organizer instruction.
Reading Psychology, 7(2), 87-100.

139
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C., & Horney, M. A. (1996). Computer-based study strategies for
students with learning disabilities: Individual differences associated with adoption level. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 29(5), 461-484.

Boon, R. T., Burke, M. D., Fore III, C., & Spencer, V. G. (2006). The impact of cognitive organizers
and technology-based practices on student success in secondary social studies classrooms. Journal
of Special Education Technology, 21(1), 5-15.

Boon, R. T., Fore, C., Ayres, K., & Spencer, V. G. (2005). The effects of cognitive organizers to
facilitate content-area learning for students with mild disabilities: A pilot study. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 32(2), 101-118.

Bowler, L. (2001). Primary school students, information literacy and the web. Education for
Information, 19(3), 201-223.

Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus student-generated
cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(4), 228-235.

Carnes, E. R., Lindbeck, J. S., & Griffin, C. F. (1987). Effects of group size and advance organizers on
learning parameters when using microcomputer tutorials in kinematics. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 24(9), 781-789.

Clements-Davis, G. L., & Ley, T. C. (1991). Thematic preorganizers and the reading comprehension
of tenth-grade world literature students. Reading Research & Instruction, 31(1), 43-53.

Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-
grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research
Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.

Darch, C. B., Carnine, D. W., & Kammeenui, E. J. (1986). The role of graphic organizers and social
structure in content area instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18(4), 275-295.

De La Paz, S. (2007). Managing cognitive demands for writing: Comparing the effects of
instructional components in strategy instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(3), 249-266.

Evans, S. W., Pelham, W., & Grudberg, M. V. (1994). The efficacy of notetaking to improve behavior
and comprehension of adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptionality,
5(1), 1-17.

Garcia-Mila, M. (2007). Developmental change in notetaking during scientific inquiry. International

Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 1035-1058.

140
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Guinee, K., Eagleton, M., & Hall, T. E. (2003). Adolescents' internet search strategies: Drawing
upon familiar cognitive paradigms when accessing electronic information sources. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 363-374.

Guinee, K., & Eagleton, M. B. (2006). Spinning straw into gold: Transforming information into
knowledge during web-based research. English Journal, 95(4), 46-52.

Herl, H. E., O'Neil, H. F. J., Chung, G. K. W. K., & Schacter, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of a
computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computers in
Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 315-333.

Horton, S., Lovitt, T., & Christensen, S. (1991). Notetaking from textbooks: Effects of a columnar
format on three categories of secondary students. Exceptionality: A Research Journal, 2(1), 18-40.

Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., Givens, A., & Nelson, R. (1989). Teaching social studies to high school
students with academic handicaps in a mainstreamed setting: Effects of a computerized study
guide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(2), 102-107.

Idol-Maestas, L. (1985). Getting ready to read: Guided probing for poor comprehenders. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 8(4), 243-254.

Kim, A. H., Vaughn, S., & Wanzek, J. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading
comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2),
105-118.

Kooy, T. (1992). The effect of graphic advance organizers on math and science comprehension
with high school special education students. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 16(2), 101-111.

Kuiper, E., Volman, K., & Terwel, J. (2004). The internet as an information resource in education: A
review of the literature. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Diego, CA.

McCrory Wallace, R., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the web: Students
online in a sixth-grade classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75-104.

McNabb, M. L., Hassel, B., & Steiner, L. (2000). Literacy learning on the net: An exploratory study. Oak
Brook, IL:North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Meltzer, L. (2007). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.

Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer
[Link] of Educational Research, 78(1), 11-17.

141
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate
meaningful [Link] Science, 19(1), 29-52.

Puntambekar, S., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Effect of visual representation of the conceptual structure
of the domain on science learning and navigation in a hypertext environment. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(4), 429-459.

Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Beth, A., Odom, S., Hsieh, Y. P., & Vanderveen, A. (2006).
Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. The
Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 103-111.

Royer, R., & Royer, J. (2004). Comparing hand drawn and computer generated concept mapping.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Technology, 23(1), 67-81.

Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and
prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42(1), 33-46.

Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting
a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124-135.

Townsend, M. A. R., & Clarihew, A. (1989). Facilitating children's comprehension through the use
of advanced organizers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21(1), 15-31.

Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy
instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305.

Troia, G. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Teaching students with learning disabilities to
mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 235-252.

Willerman, M., & Mac Harg, R. A. (1991). The concept map as an advance organizer. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 705-712.

6.3 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Cassidy, J. (1989). Using graphic organizers to develop critical thinking. Gifted Child Today, 12(6),
34-36.

Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2001). Teaching students to evaluate internet information critically.
Reading Online, 5(5). Retrieved June 23, 2009, from
[Link]
ml.

142
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2004). Executive skills in children and adolescents: A practical guide to
assessment and intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Dye, G. A. (2000). Graphic organizers to the rescue! Helping students link - and remember -
information. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 72-76.

Eagleton, M., & Guinee, K. (2002). Strategies for supporting student internet inquiry. New England
Reading Association Journal, 38(2), 39-47.

Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2006). Reading the web: Strategies for internet inquiry. New York:
Guilford Press.

Eagleton, M. B., Guinee, K., & Langlais, K. (2003). Teaching internet literacy strategies: The hero
inquiry [Link] from the Middle, 10(3), 28-35.

Egan, M. (1999). Reflections on effective use of graphic organizers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 42(8), 641-645.

Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2007). Reading for information in elementary school: Content literacy strategies
to build comprehension. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Henry, L. A. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on
the internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614-627.

Hughes, C. A., & Suritsky, S. K. (1993). Notetaking skills and strategies for students with learning
[Link] School Failure, 38(1), 7-11.

Ives, B., & Hoy, C. (2003). Graphic organizers applied to higher-level secondary mathematics.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(1), 36-51.

Kafai, Y., & Bates, M. J. (1997). Internet web-searching instruction in the elementary classroom:
Building a foundation for information literacy. School Library Media Quarterly, 25(2), 103-111.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. Reading comprehension instruction for secondary
students:Challenges for struggling readers and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(1), 103-
116.

Merkley, D. M., & Jefferies, D. (2001). Guidelines for implementing a graphic organizer. The
Reading Teacher, 54(4), 350-357.

Mosco, M. (2005). Getting the information graphically. Arts and Activities, 138(1), 44-44.

Novak, J. D. & Canas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them.
Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and

143
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Machine Cognition.. Retrieved September 8, 2009 from

[Link]

Rankin, V. (1999). The thoughtful researcher: Teaching the research process to middle school
[Link], CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc..

Rock, M. L. (2004). Graphic organizers: Tools to foster behavior literacy and foster emotional
[Link] in School and Clinic, 40(1), 10-37.

Rose, D., & Rose, K. (2007). Executive function processes: A curriculum-based intervention. In L.
Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in education (pp. 287-308). New York: Guilford Press.

Sandieson, R. (2006). Pathfinding in the research forest: The pearl harvesting method for effective
information retrieval. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(4), 401-409.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building:
A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-
68.

Schachter, J., Chung, G., & Shorr, A. (1998). Children’s internet searching on complex problems:
Performance and process analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(9),
840-849.

Sorapure, M., Inglesby, P., & Yatchisin, G. (1998). Web literacy: Challenges and opportunities for
research in a new medium. Computers and Composition, 15(3), 409-424.

Strangman, N., & Hall, T. E. (2002). Graphic organizers. Wakefield, MA: National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum.

Strangman, N., Hall, T. E., & Meyer, A. (2003). Graphic organizers with UDL. Wakefield, MA: National
Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy web: Changes in reading from page to screen.
Reading Teacher, 55(7), 662-669.

6.4: Enhance capacity for monitoring progress

Learning can be inaccessible when it requires the ability to monitor one’s own progress, and where
there are no options for individuals who differ in such executive abilities. The experimental
research collected here suggests the effectiveness of strategies such as explicit instruction for
self-monitoring, guiding questions for self-questioning and prediction, and curriculum-based
measurement. The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide additional arguments for why it is
important to enhance students’ capacity for monitoring progress.

6.4 Experimental & Quantitative Evidence

144
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Bahr, M. W., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Fernstrom, P., & Stecker, P. M. (1993). Effectiveness of student
versus teacher monitoring during prereferral intervention. Exceptionality, 4(1), 17-30.

Butler, D. L. (1997). The roles of goal setting and self-monitoring in students' self-regulated
engagement in [Link] Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997).

Calhoon, M. B., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and
curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 235-245.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe. In A. J.
Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 527-547). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Chalk, J. C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2005). The effects of self-regulated strategy
development on the writing process for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 75-88.

Chang, M. M. (2007). Enhancing web-based language learning through self-monitoring. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 187-196.

Cioffi, G., & Carney, J. J. (1997). Dynamic assessment of composing abilities in children with
learning [Link] Assessment, 4(3), 175-202.

Davis, L. B. (1995). "Will CBM help me learn?" Student perceptions of the benefits of curriculum-
based measurement. Education and Treatment of Children, 18(1), 19-32.

de Bruin, A. B. H. (2007). Improving metacomprehension accuracy and self-regulation in cognitive

skill acquisition:The effect of learner expertise. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4/5),
671-688.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L.G., Wesselman, R.,
Putnam, J. & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347-368.

Fuchs, L., Butterworth, J., & Fuchs, D. (1989). Effects of ongoing curriculum-based measurement
on student awareness of goals and progress. Education and Treatment of Children, 12(1), 63-72.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress.
School Psychology Review, 21(1), 45-58.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based
measurement to enhance instructional programs. RASE: Remedial Special Education, 10(2), 43-52.

145
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing
difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 223-234.

King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 5(4), 331-346.

Lane, K. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Weisenbach, J. L., Brindle, M., & Morphy, P. (2008). The effects
of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second-grade students with
behavioral and writing difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 234-253.

MacArthur, C. A. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education

classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(4), 201-210.

MacArthur, C. A. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with
learning [Link] Disability Quarterly, 14(1), 61-73.

Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization

and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 270-
279.

Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning:

Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96(2), 283-296.

McNaughton, D. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning disabilities: Integrating computer
and strategy [Link] Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(1), 16-28.

Meltzer, L. (2007). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.

Nolan, T. E. (1991). Self-questioning and prediction: Combining metacognitive strategies. Journal

of Reading, 35(2), 132-138.

Paris, S., Cross, D., & Lipson, M. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve
children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239-
1252.

Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1999). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-640). White
Plains, NY: Longman.

Phillips, N. B. (1993). Combining classwide curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring to

help general educators provide adaptive education. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(3),
148-156.

146
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Reid, R., & Lienemann, T. O. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development for written expression
with students with attention Deficit/Hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 73(1), 53-68.

Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing story-writing ability through self-regulated strategy development:

Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 291-305.

Sawyer, R. J. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit
self-regulation:Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 340-352.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role
of social and self-regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement:
Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 34-50). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based
measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 15(3), 128-134.

Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve
student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795-819.

Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled
students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76-103.

Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R., & García, J. N. (2007). The teachability and effectiveness of cognitive self-
regulation in sixth-grade writers. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 265-285.

Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and
normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 5(3),
228-240.

Wong, B. Y., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students
with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
29(2), 197-212.

6.4 Scholarly Reviews & Expert Opinions

Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr,
& P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. 1, pp. 353-394). White Plains, NY:
Longman.

147
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C.
S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An international approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82-
115). New York, New York: Guilford.

Carroll, J., & Christenson, C. N. K. (1995). Teaching and learning about student goal setting in a
fifth-grade classroom. Language Arts, 72(1), 42-49.

Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2004). Executive skills in children and adolescents: A practical guide to
assessment and intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research.
School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188-193.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading
competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review,
28(4), 659-671.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based
measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional
Children, 60(6), 518-537.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and
realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 414-424.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers:
Theoretical and programmatic research from the center on accelerating student learning. The
Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19-33.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Helping young writers master the craft: Strategy instruction and self
regulation in the writing process. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the
classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 35(7), 1-16.

MacArthur, C. (1994). Peers + word processing + strategies= A powerful combination for revising
student writing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 24-29.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Montague, M. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 22(1), 75-83.

148
 UDL Guidelines Version 2.2

Paris, S. G. (1986). Teaching children to guide their reading and learning. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.), The
contexts of school-based literacy (pp. 115-130). New York, NY: Random House.

Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student
interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5-15.

Rankin, V. (1999). The thoughtful researcher: Teaching the research process to middle school students.
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Reid, R. (1996). Research in self-monitoring with students with learning disabilities: The present,
the prospects, the pitfalls. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 317-331.

Rose, D., & Rose, K. (2007). Executive function processes: A curriculum-based intervention. In L.
Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in education (pp. 287-308). New York: Guilford Press.

Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Nolan, S. M., & Alley, G. R. (1994). The self-questioning strategy.
Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas.

Shinn, M. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. J., Zech, L. and Cognition and Technology
Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and
revision. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and
Practice (pp. 305-346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Webre, E. C. (2005). Enhancing reading success with collaboratively created progress charts.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 291-295.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student
performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of personal competence: Self
regulated learning and practice. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 509-526). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

149