揭示实施通用学习设计的挑战:系统文献综述

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7
Ling Zhang, Richard Allen Carter, Jeffrey A. Greene, Matthew L. Bernacki
{"title":"揭示实施通用学习设计的挑战:系统文献综述","authors":"Ling Zhang, Richard Allen Carter, Jeffrey A. Greene, Matthew L. Bernacki","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Educators and instructional designers have used the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to guide their design of inclusive instruction for students with and without disabilities. Despite UDL having entered its 4th decade of development and research, there have been ongoing critiques of UDL for lacking clarity in definition, challenges with implementation, and insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. These critiques warrant further evaluation of UDL, especially with a focus on the theoretical underpinnings behind its conceptualization and implementation. Thus, we synthesized 32 peer-reviewed studies published between 1999 and 2023 that focused on UDL implementation in preK-12 educational settings and measured various aspects of student learning outcomes (e.g., cognitive, motivational, and behavioral). Specifically, we evaluated each study’s intervention or instructional design in terms of its alignment to UDL checkpoints, guidelines, and/or principles as well as existing theories of learning or instructional design. Results revealed several interrelated challenges that stymie UDL research, including the absence of explicit alignment between UDL checkpoints and intervention or instructional designs investigated in the extant literature, the uneven coverage of implemented checkpoints and corresponding guidelines, the overlap among multiple checkpoints and guidelines, and the lack of theoretical guidance regarding the design and implementation processes. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for strengthening the research base for less frequently applied UDL checkpoints, recommendations for documenting checkpoints and relationships among checkpoints as indispensable components of UDL implementation, and directions for future research conducted via systematic UDL implementation guided by established theories.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unraveling Challenges with the Implementation of Universal Design for Learning: A Systematic Literature Review\",\"authors\":\"Ling Zhang, Richard Allen Carter, Jeffrey A. Greene, Matthew L. Bernacki\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Educators and instructional designers have used the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to guide their design of inclusive instruction for students with and without disabilities. Despite UDL having entered its 4th decade of development and research, there have been ongoing critiques of UDL for lacking clarity in definition, challenges with implementation, and insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. These critiques warrant further evaluation of UDL, especially with a focus on the theoretical underpinnings behind its conceptualization and implementation. Thus, we synthesized 32 peer-reviewed studies published between 1999 and 2023 that focused on UDL implementation in preK-12 educational settings and measured various aspects of student learning outcomes (e.g., cognitive, motivational, and behavioral). Specifically, we evaluated each study’s intervention or instructional design in terms of its alignment to UDL checkpoints, guidelines, and/or principles as well as existing theories of learning or instructional design. Results revealed several interrelated challenges that stymie UDL research, including the absence of explicit alignment between UDL checkpoints and intervention or instructional designs investigated in the extant literature, the uneven coverage of implemented checkpoints and corresponding guidelines, the overlap among multiple checkpoints and guidelines, and the lack of theoretical guidance regarding the design and implementation processes. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for strengthening the research base for less frequently applied UDL checkpoints, recommendations for documenting checkpoints and relationships among checkpoints as indispensable components of UDL implementation, and directions for future research conducted via systematic UDL implementation guided by established theories.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

教育工作者和教学设计者使用通用学习设计(UDL)框架来指导他们为残疾和非残疾学生设计全纳教学。尽管 UDL 的发展和研究已经进入了第四个十年,但对 UDL 的批评一直不断,认为其定义不够清晰,在实施过程中面临挑战,而且没有足够的证据证明其有效性。这些批评意见表明,有必要对 UDL 进行进一步评估,特别是要关注其概念化和实施背后的理论基础。因此,我们综合了 1999 年至 2023 年间发表的 32 项经同行评审的研究,这些研究关注的是 UDL 在学前教育-12 教育环境中的实施情况,并测量了学生学习成果的各个方面(如认知、动机和行为)。具体来说,我们对每项研究的干预或教学设计进行了评估,看其是否符合 UDL 检查点、指南和/或原则,以及现有的学习或教学设计理论。结果发现了阻碍 UDL 研究的几个相互关联的挑战,包括 UDL 检查点与现有文献中调查的干预或教学设计之间缺乏明确的一致性,已实施的检查点和相应指导原则的覆盖范围不均衡,多个检查点和指导原则之间存在重叠,以及缺乏有关设计和实施过程的理论指导。基于这些发现,我们提出了加强对应用较少的通识教育检查点的研究基础的建议、记录作为通识教育实施不可或缺的组成部分的检查点和检查点之间关系的建议,以及在既定理论指导下通过系统的通识教育实施开展未来研究的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unraveling Challenges with the Implementation of Universal Design for Learning: A Systematic Literature Review

Educators and instructional designers have used the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to guide their design of inclusive instruction for students with and without disabilities. Despite UDL having entered its 4th decade of development and research, there have been ongoing critiques of UDL for lacking clarity in definition, challenges with implementation, and insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. These critiques warrant further evaluation of UDL, especially with a focus on the theoretical underpinnings behind its conceptualization and implementation. Thus, we synthesized 32 peer-reviewed studies published between 1999 and 2023 that focused on UDL implementation in preK-12 educational settings and measured various aspects of student learning outcomes (e.g., cognitive, motivational, and behavioral). Specifically, we evaluated each study’s intervention or instructional design in terms of its alignment to UDL checkpoints, guidelines, and/or principles as well as existing theories of learning or instructional design. Results revealed several interrelated challenges that stymie UDL research, including the absence of explicit alignment between UDL checkpoints and intervention or instructional designs investigated in the extant literature, the uneven coverage of implemented checkpoints and corresponding guidelines, the overlap among multiple checkpoints and guidelines, and the lack of theoretical guidance regarding the design and implementation processes. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for strengthening the research base for less frequently applied UDL checkpoints, recommendations for documenting checkpoints and relationships among checkpoints as indispensable components of UDL implementation, and directions for future research conducted via systematic UDL implementation guided by established theories.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
On Being Accepted: Interrogating How University Cultural Scripts Shape Personal and Political Facets of Belonging Linking Disparate Strands: A Critical Review of the Relationship Between Creativity and Education Exploring the Nature-Creativity Connection Across Different Settings: A Scoping Review Bold, Humble, Collaborative, and Virtuous: The Future of Theory Development in Educational Psychology Effects of School-led Greenspace Interventions on Mental, Physical and Social Wellbeing in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1