LP762-L2 WEEK 7

489

Brandt, S. E., & Szarkowski, A. (2022). Universal design for learning in deaf education contexts: A scoping review. American Annals of the Deaf, 167(4), 489–502.

Universal Design for Learning in Deaf Education Contexts: A Scoping Review Sarah E. Brandt and Amy Szarkowski

Brandt is an associate at The Institute, The Children’s Center for Communication/Beverly School for the Deaf (CCCBSD),

Beverly, MA. Director of The Institute, Szarkowski is also a faculty member, Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmen-

tal and Related Disabilities Program, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, and a research fellow, Institute for Commu-

nity Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.

The authors performed a scoping review using a five-stage methodological framework (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010) to map the nature and extent of the literature regarding universal design for learning (UDL) in deaf education contexts. UDL is a well-established framework that pro- vides actionable recommendations for developing instruction. The review revealed that high-quality investigations of UDL in deaf education are limited; only three articles met criteria for inclusion, though excluded articles were also examined for themes. The analysis showed that despite global interest in studying UDL through a variety of methods, more research is needed that applies this framework explicitly throughout study design, analysis, and discussion rather than just within the framing. Given its inclusion in federal educational policy, it is critical that scholars and educators examine how UDL can support educators in the design and implementation of impactful instruction for deaf learners.

Keywords: universal design for learning, UDL, deaf, deaf education, curriculum, instruction, scoping review

Universal design for learning (UDL) has, in the almost 40 years since its inception, moved from a framework focused on students with disabilities to a guiding element in federal law and national education plans for all students. From the Every Student Succeeds Act to the National Education Technology Plan and the Higher Education Opportunity Act, UDL is notable across many impor- tant policies that guide educators (Center for Applied Special Technologies [CAST], 2022b). This rise to prominence is due in part to UDL’s focus on practicality, its acknowledgment of the diversity of learners, and its integration with

emerging technologies (Chen, 2008). Foundational empirical research drove the development of UDL at CAST and contin- ues to shape its ongoing revision (CAST, 2022a). Applied studies of the implemen- tation of this framework have shown promise across contexts including PK–12 classrooms (Ok et al., 2017), special education (Cook & Rao, 2018), higher education (Fornauf & Erickson, 2020), and online learning (Basham et al., 2020). What is known about the application of UDL in deaf education contexts? What remains to be explored? The present article, a scoping review, examines these questions.

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 489American Annals of the Deaf.indb 489 12/3/2022 5:53:02 PM12/3/2022 5:53:02 PM

490 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 4, 2022

Universal Design for Learning

According to the UDL framework, barriers to learning are created not by individual students but by rigid curricula that do not sufficiently consider or harness the power of diverse learners. UDL aims to reduce these barriers through curricula and instruction customized to meet every student’s level of need for support and educational challenge (Lapinski et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2014). This objective can be realized through the application of the UDL guidelines. As shown in Figure 1, each column (engagement, representation, and action and expression) represents a principle of UDL, while each row (access,

build, and internalize) represents the level of support a learner needs in order to be successful (CAST, 2018). This arrangement generates a matrix of nine guidelines, each with a set of discrete checkpoints that offer targeted strategies for implementation of that guideline, assisting educators to infuse UDL into curricula in specific, organized, and actionable ways. The goal of providing these multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression is to help all students become “expert learners,” conceptualized as those who are purposeful and motivated, resourceful and knowledgeable, and strategic and goal directed (Meyer et al., 2014). UDL offers flexibility, acknowledges

Figure 1. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines (CAST, 2018)

Note. Copyright 2018 by CAST, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 490American Annals of the Deaf.indb 490 12/3/2022 5:53:03 PM12/3/2022 5:53:03 PM

Universal Design for Learning: Scoping Review 491

individual learning differences, and aims to improve teacher practice.

The teaching practices recommended in the UDL guidelines are not, in and of themselves, particularly groundbreaking. In most cases, they simply represent well-established, exceptional teaching approaches and strategies. Engagement in reflection and review, activation of back- ground knowledge, and scaffolding support—each reflected as a checkpoint of the guidelines—are hallmark practices of effective teaching (Rosenshine, 2012). The alignment of effective teaching practices into a matrix of principles and levels of support makes the UDL guidelines a useful resource for instructional design. Teachers can use the UDL guidelines to select teaching practices that push their students toward specific goals. For exam- ple, if a student appears disengaged from a given lesson, the teacher may rely on the engagement principle and recruit interest by creating opportunities for student choice. If a teacher wishes to increase a student’s independent use of strategies, checkpoints at the internalize level may be appropriate. A teacher unfamiliar with the UDL guidelines may, in fact, be very familiar with the effective teaching prac- tices the guidelines recommend, and may employ them regularly. As a framework, the UDL guidelines encourage precise review, selection, and implementation of teaching practices that research has demonstrated to be effective.

Research and UDL

The UDL framework—including its principles, guidelines, and checkpoints— grew out of research on effective teaching. The results and conclusions of many empirical studies were used to develop the framework. Importantly, however, the studies that led to the development of the

UDL framework generally did not explic- itly focus on UDL per se, as an overarching construct. Rather, researchers examined and identified elements of effective teach- ing that were incorporated into the guide- lines. Robust lists of citations for each principle, guideline, and checkpoint can be found on the CAST website (CAST, 2022a). For example, Easterbrooks and Stoner (2006) found that use of a visual tool, along with fading support offered by teachers, increased the frequency of descriptive adjective use in the writing products of deaf youth. This intervention aligns with several UDL guidelines, including providing options for perception (representation principle) and expression and communication (action and expression principle). However, Easterbrooks and Stoner did not set out to explore specific UDL guidelines or the framework as a whole; in fact, UDL is not mentioned anywhere in their study. Rather, their intervention—the use of a visual tool— illustrates the potential impact of imple- menting these guidelines. In this way, the study provides foundational support for the framework without being an imple- mentation of UDL itself. Informed by a wide range of methodologies, teaching practices, and learner populations, founda- tional research has supported the birth, growth, and continued refinement of UDL, as shown in Figure 2. This grounding in evidence is one element that makes UDL an attractive framework.

Foundational studies allow for contin- ued refinement of the framework and contribute to the understanding of what UDL is—a role shared by applied empirical studies. In addition, applied studies build the knowledge base regarding UDL implementation across populations and contexts, contributing to the understand- ing of what UDL can do. Applied empirical studies help to determine the efficacy,

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 491American Annals of the Deaf.indb 491 12/3/2022 5:53:03 PM12/3/2022 5:53:03 PM

492 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 4, 2022

value, and accuracy of UDL implementa- tions as well as contribute to the ongoing refinement of the UDL guidelines. Figure 2 depicts the iterative process of refinement of the UDL framework based on founda- tional and applied empirical studies. Applied empirical investigations that explore the impact of learning designed with the UDL framework are few (Ok et al., 2017), yet represent a growing area of research (Mangiatordi & Serenelli, 2013). For example, Al-Azawei and colleagues (2016) found that implementation of UDL with learners with disabilities promoted reading comprehension, performance, enjoyment, satisfaction, engagement, and self-efficacy.

Notably, a framework for working with learners who are deaf with disabilities was published in 2022, by Guardino et al. As an assets-based approach to instruction that emphasizes accessibility, flexibility, and innovation, UDL was utilized as the “roof” of this framework, overarching a foundational learning theory and pillars of effective teaching practice. The inclusion of UDL in this new framework advances and centers UDL in the instruction of deaf learners, setting the stage and acting as a catalyst for exciting implementation scholarship with learners who are deaf with disabilities.

Both foundational and applied empiri- cal investigations are valuable. In the present scoping review, we focus on applied empirical studies, in order to examine what is known—and what

remains unexplored—regarding UDL for deaf learners.

Method

To explore the application of UDL in deaf education contexts, we performed a scoping review of the literature. Our purpose was to map the nature and extent of the literature and to identify existing research gaps (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Grant & Booth, 2009). Because prelimi- nary investigation into this topic suggested that the body of evidence on UDL in deaf education contexts was limited and methodologically diverse, we selected a scoping review as an appropriate approach (Levac et al., 2010; Pham et al., 2014). We utilized Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) five-stage methodological framework, incorporating many of the recommenda- tions of Levac et al. (2010). These stages, along with their associated research activities, are shown in Figure 3.

In Stage 1 of the framework, we asked two research questions:

1. What elements of UDL are explicitly present in research in deaf education contexts?

2. What are the research needs regarding UDL in deaf education contexts?

In Stage 2, we established initial inclusion- ary criteria: Articles needed to be (a) empirical in design, (b) explicit in their mention of UDL in the title, abstract, or

Figure 2.  Role of Foundational and Applied Empirical Studies in Relation to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Framework

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 492American Annals of the Deaf.indb 492 12/3/2022 5:53:03 PM12/3/2022 5:53:03 PM

Universal Design for Learning: Scoping Review 493

keywords, and (c) published in English in a peer-reviewed journal in or after 1984 (the year of the introduction of UDL at CAST). At this stage, we placed no limits on research methodology, learner mode of

communication, educational setting, or classroom type.

The first author located relevant studies by performing iterative searches in data- bases (Academic Search Premier, ERIC,

Figure 3.  Scoping Review Stages and Associated Research Activities (Informed by Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al. 2010)

Note. UDL = universal design for learning.

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 493American Annals of the Deaf.indb 493 12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM

494 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 4, 2022

Education Research Complete, Profes- sional Development Collection, and JSTOR) and in the reference lists of the located articles. Two key phrases were used. The first targeted the learner popula- tion (deaf, hard of hearing, hard-of-hearing, hearing impaired, hearing impairment, or hearing loss) and the second targeted the framework (universal design for learning, or UDL). We acknowledge that some of these terms have lost favor; however, they were included to ensure that we captured all relevant research, including historical texts. Additionally, we searched the CAST research evidence lists (CAST, 2022a) for any articles focused on deaf or hard of hearing learners. Key information from each article was organized in a spread- sheet, including author(s), year and journal of publication, title, and abstract.

In Stage 3, we selected studies for inclusion by engaging in multiple rounds of independent review, joint discussion, and application of additional inclusionary criteria, as illustrated in Figure 3. The review of keywords and abstracts was followed by a review of full texts. Articles that met all inclusionary criteria were included in the scoping review.

At Stage 4 of the framework (see Figure 3), the first author fully inventoried the contents of the included articles through descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2021). Two types of information were extracted and charted: (a) basic descriptive information (e.g., research questions, methodology, participants) and (b) explicitly present elements of UDL (e.g., within the literature review/framing, intervention design, findings, recommen- dations). This process aligned with the methodological framework by summariz- ing the use of a theory in a meaningful format (Levac et al., 2010). The first author recorded appropriate data—such as research questions—in vivo, citing

language used in each article. The second author participated in review and discus- sion of all data extracted through descrip- tive coding.

In Stage 5, we analyzed the descriptive information and elements of UDL using pattern coding as a second cycle method (Saldaña, 2021), and reported our results.

Results

In the present scoping study, we followed a five-stage methodological framework (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010), as shown in Figure 3. In Stage 1, we posed two research questions: (a) What elements of UDL are explicitly present in research in deaf education contexts? and (b) What are the research needs regarding UDL in deaf education contexts? We identified 71 relevant citations during Stage 2. Following discussion between the authors, additional inclusionary criteria were applied in Stage 3 to limit contexts of the studies to PK–12 educational settings, excluding research in higher education as well as that conducted in museums or libraries. With 99% agree- ment, we moved forward to full text review of 23 of the 71 articles. An addi- tional criterion was again applied: UDL had to be explicitly present to frame the study (i.e., within the literature review, theoretical framework, or rationale). With 100% agreement, three articles were identified for inclusion and 20 were excluded.

Basic descriptive information—charted during Stage 4 and analyzed during Stage 5—is displayed in Table 1. Example pattern codes for these data include instruction, reflection, outcomes, setting, teacher support, multimedia tool, and barriers. This review identified articles using qualitative and mixed research designs.

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 494American Annals of the Deaf.indb 494 12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM

Universal Design for Learning: Scoping Review 495

Table 1. Characteristics of the Studies Meeting Criteria for the Scoping Review

Selected studies

Mapepa & Magano (2018) Nikolaraizi, Vekiri, & Easterbrooks (2013) Vesel & Robillard (2013)

Country

South Africa Greece United States

Research question(s)

What are educator reflections on support services needed for them to address barriers to learning of learners who are deaf?

Did students utilize the visual resources of the See and See software [i.e., Greek Sign Language (GSL), pictures, and the concept map] during independent reading and with minimal prior instruction? Which resources of the software did they tend to use? What information did the students extract from the visual resources of See and See during reading? Did they integrate the information from these resources during reading? Did use of the visual resource of See and See aid reading comprehension?

How does the teaching of mathematics look without use of the Signing Math Dictionary (SMD)? How do teachers integrate the SMD into their teaching of mathematics vocabulary? What are potential benefits of SMD use?

Methodology

Qualitative design Mixed research design Descriptive case study

Participants

11 purposively selected primary school educators (8 women, 3 men, ages 26–60 years), from two provinces at special schools for learners who are deaf

8 students (ages 7–12 years) at a school for the deaf with severe to profound hearing loss and no additional disabilities; able to communicate in Greek or GSL; reading level adequate

39 participants, grades 4–8 (8 teachers, 31 students), across eight classrooms in two schools for the deaf

Description

Interview included biographical and academic wellness data, with reference to adaptation of the curriculum and support services in communication and academics.

Students interfaced with narrative texts from the state textbooks used in Greek primary schools, GSL text- and sentence-level videos, pictures for sentences or paragraphs, concept maps, and reading comprehension questions.

Assistive tool with ~1,000 standards- based math terms drawn from instructional materials was used in grades 4–8, expressed by an animated signing avatar.

Duration

Unreported Each student in the study engaged in a 1-hour demonstration and a 1-hour testing phase.

Observation of three class meetings (teaching without SMD, introduction of SMD, teaching with SMD) was followed by teacher interview.

Reported results

Curriculum adaptation was an important support system. Lack of support in appropriate teaching or learning materials. Learning space in one school was overcrowded. Multidisciplinary professionals received limited support in most schools.

Students enjoyed and used most of the visual resources in the software independently. Not always clear whether the selection of resources was motivated by general curiosity or the students’ need to monitor and augment their text understanding. Beneficial role of the visual resources was more evident when students replied to the reading comprehension questions.

SMD contributed to giving deaf or hard of hearing students in grades 4–8 access to math vocabulary in their own language. SMD’s interactive features prompted creative individualized instruction for a wide range of learners with varying levels of hearing loss and learning challenges. Avatar technology appeared to motivate students, and to initiate curiosity and interest in learning math.

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 495American Annals of the Deaf.indb 495 12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM

496 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 4, 2022

The studies for the scoping review explored teacher instruction and reflec- tions, as well as student outcomes and use of resources, examining the impact of UDL on teachers and/or students. Areas of opportunity not represented in these studies include student reflections (What are students’ experiences when their learning is designed with UDL in mind?) and teacher use of resources (How can teachers use resources designed with UDL effectively?).

The articles included in the review represent research conducted in the United States, Greece, and South Africa. While the relevance of UDL in the United States is reflected in federal law and national educa- tion plans, this scoping review revealed promising international interest in exploring the role of UDL in supporting deaf learners.

This review shows that research has explored UDL for both teachers and students at the elementary/middle level at schools for the deaf. It also reveals oppor- tunities to extend future research to additional age/grade levels (e.g., PK, high school), communication modalities (e.g., signed language, spoken language), and educational settings (e.g., mainstream programs, center-based schools for chil- dren who are deaf). Future studies should include deaf students with disabilities, who were excluded in one case (Nikolaraizi et al., 2013) and unmentioned in another (Mapepa & Magano, 2018).

Explicit elements of UDL—charted during Stage 4 and analyzed during Stage 5—are displayed in Table 2. Example patterns codes for these data include rationale, UDL principles, training, policy, and research dissemination.

On the basis of our inclusionary criteria, UDL was used to frame the study—through the literature review, theoretical framework, or rationale—of three articles. More specifically, UDL was observed in the selection of instructional approaches

(Mapepa & Magano, 2018), the design of resources (Vesel & Robillard, 2013), and the integration of multimedia (Nikolaraizi et al., 2013). However, UDL subsequently lost its foothold; the framework later appeared only three times across all articles. In their intervention design, Vesel and Robillard (2013) described the use and integration of the UDL principles in the design of a mathematics resource. In their findings, Mapepa and Magano (2018) acknowledged the influence of global trends—including interest in UDL—in South Africa and other African countries. They also addressed UDL within their recommendations, urging professionals to provide additional training in UDL for educators, as well as to share research findings in order to influence policy and practice. Beyond the framing, UDL was not revisited by Nikolaraizi et al. (2013). The use of UDL to frame these three studies, followed by the limited evidence of further application, reveals a disconnect between the use of UDL as a foundational element of a research study and its meaningful exploration.

Shaping Our Understanding

Three articles were included in this scoping review on the basis of our estab- lished inclusionary criteria, analysis of which supported our understanding of both research questions. However, in considering our second question (What are the research needs regarding UDL in deaf education contexts?), we sought more information by re-examining our list of 20 articles excluded during the full text review. While these articles did not meet our inclusionary criteria, they were useful in describing the landscape of UDL in deaf education contexts. These excluded articles contained information that supports the general understanding of how deaf

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 496American Annals of the Deaf.indb 496 12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM

Universal Design for Learning: Scoping Review 497

education views and defines UDL as well as how it is reflected in the current litera- ture. Such an understanding can be valuable in determining future research needs, per our second research question. The 20 studies excluded after full text review fit into four primary categories: (a) articles that were not empirically studied and/or peer-reviewed, (b) studies that were outside the scope of a PK–12

educational setting for deaf learners, (c) articles that included recommendations for using UDL, yet did not investigate its application, and (d) articles that reflected foundational rather than applied studies of UDL.

Four articles did not meet the inclusion- ary criterial of being empirical and/or peer-reviewed: B. Dalton et al. (2005), Hartmann (2011), Hartmann & Weismer

Table 2. Explicit Elements of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

Selected studies

Mapepa & Magano (2018)

Nikolaraizi, Vekiri, & Easterbrooks (2013)

Vesel & Robillard (2013)

Framing the study

Defines UDL broadly States goals of UDL Describes approaches that support UDL-based teaching Provides a rationale for relevance of UDL for deaf learners

Provides a rationale for individualizing instruction using UDL, from planning to implementation stages Acknowledges challenge of applying UDL due to heterogeneity of deaf populations Highlights the creation of a visual learning environment for deaf learners as an element of UDL Identifies multimedia as a valuable tool in the implementation of UDL

Outlines principles of UDL Describes why the Signing Math Dictionary (SMD) was designed according to the principles of UDL

Intervention design

Not applicable No explicit description States that the authors sought to integrate the three principles of UDL during the design of the SMD Describes features of the SMD that illustrate each UDL principle Provides a visual example from the SMD that illustrates the integration of UDL principles

Findings

Acknowledges influence of global research trends on inclusive education practices and policies in South Africa

No explicit description No explicit description

Recommendations

Explore UDL implementation through training for teachers and therapists Share research findings with policymakers and educators to influence policy and practice

No explicit description No explicit description

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 497American Annals of the Deaf.indb 497 12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM

498 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 4, 2022

(2016), and McIntosh et al. (1994). For example, the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center at Gallaudet University and CAST collaborated on development of three digital hypertexts with embedded reading comprehension strategies, Ameri- can Sign Language (ASL) support, formative skill–based assessments, and other digital tools in several middle school classrooms (B. Dalton et al., 2005). The researchers found that 69% of students showed improvement in reading achievement across a range of literacy and ASL proficiency levels. The UDL-based elements of this design and the target audience make this study a unique contribution. Peer-reviewed empirical studies of this type could strengthen the evidence base for UDL implementations in deaf education contexts.

The study populations and contexts of seven articles were outside PK–12 educa- tional settings for deaf learners: Bargerhuff (2013), E. M. Dalton et al. (2012), Ford et al. (2001), Hall et al. (2015), Hartmann (2015), Miller & Satsangi (2018), and Vesel & Robillard (2017). For example, UDL was reported to be a beneficial instructional design tool for educators of learners with severe disabilities (Hartmann, 2015). While some deaf learners do present with severe disabilities, and learners identified with severe disabilities can also be deaf, this is not always the case; Hartmann’s article did not describe deaf education contexts specifically. Similarly, the use of a digital signing dictionary was explored in a museum setting with family groups (Vesel & Robillard, 2017). That particular study was excluded because it did not occur in a PK–12 educational setting. However, these articles illustrate the applicability of UDL to varied populations and in diverse settings. This certainly opens the door to research across many areas.

In one article (Guardino, 2015), the application of UDL principles within

lesson plans was recommended to prepare preservice teachers to work with students who are deaf with disabilities. However, UDL did not inform the theoretical framework or rationale of that study. This observation highlights areas worthy of exploration: Are preservice teachers of the deaf learning about UDL, particularly to support those with disabilities? How can UDL be integrated into teacher preparation programs? Scholars and professionals involved with teacher preparation should consider questions like these when fram- ing future work on UDL.

Finally, eight articles—Barman & Stockton (2002), Easterbrooks & Stephen- son (2006), Easterbrooks & Stoner (2006), Gentry et al. (2004), Lang & Steely (2003), Nikolaraizi & Vekiri (2012), Roald (2002), and Wang & Paul (2011)—were considered foundational studies, rather than applied studies (see Figure 2). In other words, they illustrated the UDL framework or princi- ples in PK–12 deaf education contexts without explicitly mentioning UDL at all. Notably, it may be possible to find many articles fitting this description. These eight articles, excluded during the full text review, form a representative rather than exhaustive list. For example, authors described the design and implementation of technology-based literacy approaches with deaf elementary school–aged students (Wang & Paul, 2011). The tools and approaches incorporate many elements of UDL without the authors explicitly using UDL to frame the study. These founda- tional empirical studies (see Figure 2) support understanding of what UDL is and how it can be applied in various settings and populations. These were not applied studies that explored UDL implementa- tions; therefore, they did not fit the criteria for our scoping review. However, their contribution to the continued refinement of UDL is important to capture.

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 498American Annals of the Deaf.indb 498 12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM

Universal Design for Learning: Scoping Review 499

This—and likely other—promising work is being done that can have an impact on how UDL is implemented and examined, such as in nonclassroom spaces (Vesel & Robillard, 2017) and through non–peer-reviewed research reports (B. Dalton et al., 2005). While peripheral to our primary analysis in this scoping review, these 20 excluded articles sup- ported the contextualization of UDL in deaf education settings.

Discussion

In the present study, we performed a scoping review to seek a deeper under- standing of the scholarship of UDL imple- mentation in deaf education contexts. Clear search procedures and criteria for inclusion were established; an extensive review located three articles for analysis. These articles and their characteristics illustrate an overarching reality: When we ask how much is known about UDL in deaf educa- tion contexts, the answer is “not enough.”

UDL is well established within educa- tional plans and policies in the United States, and international interest and application continue to grow. This scoping review stands as evidence that significantly more can be done in the field of deaf education to both harness the power of UDL for deaf learners and to contribute to the growing understanding of UDL implementation with a variety of popula- tions. This conclusion aligns with one purpose of performing a scoping review: to examine the extent and range of research in a given area (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Pham et al., 2014). Based on the findings of this review, the extent and range of this research is quite limited.

Variations in the design and methods of the three included studies illustrate differing possibilities for collecting empiri- cal evidence regarding UDL in deaf

education contexts; however, significant opportunities remain to both deepen and broaden investigations in this area. These variations highlight the fact that UDL can—and should—be explored in deaf education contexts in diverse ways. Doing so can strengthen the evidence base in applied empirical investigations of UDL.

Our first research question asked, What elements of UDL are explicitly present in research in deaf education contexts? On the basis of our review, we found that research- ers identify UDL as a relevant framework with the potential to support the design of individualized instruction that meets the diverse needs of deaf learners. Visual learning environments and multimedia can be particularly valuable elements of UDL for deaf learners. The UDL principles— engagement, representation, and action and expression—were explicitly described in the design of one learning tool (Vesel & Robillard, 2013). However, generally, this review illustrates that the presence of UDL in deaf education contexts has been broad and lacking in specificity. While the authors of existing publications did frame these studies with UDL, they did not focus on developing deeper understanding of how UDL informed intervention design or outcomes for teachers or students. There remains significant opportunity to explore how UDL can support educators and deaf learners.

The examination of the 20 articles that were excluded from the present study provides evidence that empirical studies of UDL implementations in deaf education contexts are possible. These studies included promising elements, such as implementation of digital tools that supported academic achievement (B. Dalton et al., 2005) and application of UDL to diverse settings, such as museums (Vesel & Robillard, 2017). More peer- reviewed empirical studies are needed to

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 499American Annals of the Deaf.indb 499 12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM

500 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 4, 2022

advance understanding in the field of deaf education regarding the potential of UDL to support deaf learners. In considering the elements of UDL explicitly present in deaf education contexts, the present review shows that researchers know that UDL is relevant and promising. However, this has not led to a breadth of studies that further specific understanding of how UDL can support deaf learners.

Our second research question—What are the research needs regarding UDL in deaf education contexts?—aligned with another purpose of scoping reviews: to identify research gaps in the existing literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Pham et al., 2014). Given the limited number and broad nature of the articles found in this review, one relatively straightforward step for the field of deaf education is simply to engage in more UDL-focused research. This could cover many areas: (a) the design of instructional resources, (b) the implementation of UDL-based activities, and (c) the training of teachers to apply UDL, among others. More research is needed in the field that moves beyond framing studies with UDL, toward applying this framework explicitly throughout study design, analysis, and discussion.

There is a need to explore how UDL can benefit learners across various deaf populations (e.g., with and without disabilities), communication modalities (e.g., signed language, spoken language), age/grade levels (e.g., early learning, high school), settings (e.g., mainstream, center based), and contexts (e.g., language arts, science/technology). It is important to build this library of information regard- ing how UDL works across the diverse range of deaf learners. A larger corpus of studies will enable future reviews to more clearly identify patterns, benefits, and challenges. Only with more evidence can

educational practice and policy be posi- tively affected.

Research regarding the training and support of teachers (preservice and in-service) to understand, apply, and maintain UDL in their teaching practice is also needed. Curricula, instruction, and resources are necessarily filtered through teachers. They need sufficient time, training, and ongoing support to create, implement, and assess UDL-based inter- ventions with fidelity, particularly those involving technology. Student success is about more than access to technologies designed with UDL; students need support if they are to know how to select and use resources—such as digital scaffolds—that benefit them as learners. Interactive digital tools—such as those designed with UDL—can be engaging and “cool.” Researchers need to ensure that teacher and student responses to these interven- tions are not limited to the relatively short duration of a research project by providing ample time and opportunity to explore, understand, and select features of these tools that support learning. Rather, long-term implications of access to UDL-infused interventions, including support for teachers to maintain these efforts, should be explored.

Conclusion

Since early in its development, UDL has experienced extensive growth and gained mainstream popularity. UDL is regularly discussed at educational conferences, endorsed in federal policies, and taught in teacher professional-learning programs. In order for UDL to continue to grow and to affect education in meaningful ways, it should be regularly refined through foundational studies and expanded through applied studies of implementa- tion. The present scoping review shows

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 500American Annals of the Deaf.indb 500 12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM

Universal Design for Learning: Scoping Review 501

that high-quality investigations of UDL in deaf education contexts are limited, although there is great potential to harness the power of UDL for deaf learners.

References Al-Azawei, A., Serenelli, F., & Lundqvist, K. (2016).

Universal design for learning (UDL): A content analysis of peer-reviewed journal papers from 2012 to 2015. Journal of the Scholarship of Teach- ing and Learning, 16(3), 39–56. https://doi. org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.19295

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Interna- tional Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557 032000119616

Bargerhuff, M. E. (2013). Meeting the needs of stu- dents with disabilities in a STEM school. Ameri- can Secondary Education, 41(3), 3–20. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/43694164

Barman, C. R., & Stockton, J. D. (2002). An evalua- tion of the SOAR-High Project: A web-based science program for deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(3), 5–10. http://www.jstor. org/stable/44390351

Basham, J. D., Blackorby, H., & Marino, M. T. (2020). Opportunity in crisis: The role of uni- versal design for learning in educational rede- sign. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 18(1), 71–91. https://eric.ed.gov/?id =EJ1264277

Center for Applied Special Technologies. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 (graphic organizer). https://udlguidelines. cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/ udlg-v2-2/udlg_graphicorganizer_v2-2_num- bers-yes.pdf

Center for Applied Special Technologies. (2022a). Research evidence. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ more/research-evidence

Center for Applied Special Technologies. (2022b). UDL in public policy. https://www.cast.org/ impact/udl-public-policy

Chen, E. (2008, December 20). The importance of universal design for learning. Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://www.gse.harvard. edu/news/uk/08/12/importance-universal- design-learning

Cook, S. C., & Rao, K. (2018). Systematically apply- ing UDL to effective practices for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 41(3), 179–191. https://doi. org/10.1177/0731948717749936

Dalton, B., Schleper, D., Kennedy, M., Lutz, L., & Strangman, N. (2005). Shared Reading Project: Chapter by chapter—Thinking reader (Final report). Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center & Center for Applied Special Technologies.

Dalton, E. M., Mckenzie, J. A., & Kahonde, C. (2012). The implementation of inclusive educa- tion in South Africa: Reflections arising from a workshop for teachers and therapists to introduce Universal Design for Learning. African Journal of Disability, 1(1), Article 13. https://ajod.org/index. php/ajod/article/view/13

Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stephenson, B. (2006). An examination of twenty literacy, science, and mathematics practices used to educate students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 151(4), 385–397. https://www.jstor. org/stable/26234397

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/152574010 60270020701

Ford, A., Pugach, M. C., & Otis-Wilborn, A., (2001). Preparing general educators to work well with students who have disabilities: What’s reasonable at the preservice level? Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 275–285. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1511116

Fornauf, B. S., & Erickson, J. D. (2020). Toward an inclusive pedagogy through universal design for learning in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 183–199. https://eric.ed.gov/ ?id=EJ1273677

Gentry, M. M., Chinn, K. M., & Moulton, R. D. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394–403. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26234688

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and asso- ciated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Guardino, C. (2015). Evaluating teachers’ prepared- ness to work with students who are deaf and hard of hearing with disabilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(4), 415–426. https://doi.org/ 10.1353/aad.2015.0030

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 501American Annals of the Deaf.indb 501 12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM12/3/2022 5:53:04 PM

502 American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 167, No. 4, 2022

Guardino, C., Cannon, J. E., & Paul, P. V. (Eds.). (2022). Deaf and hard of hearing learners with disabilities: Foundations, strategies, and resources. Routledge.

Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL and technology: Strategic Reader. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 72–83. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/24570079

Hartmann, E. (2011). Universal design for learning. Practice perspectives—Highlighting information on deaf-blindness. Number 8. National Consortium on Deaf-Blindness. https://eric.ed.gov/?id= ED531767

Hartmann, E. (2015). Universal design for learning (UDL) and learners with severe support needs. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 11(1), 54–67. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1061020

Hartmann, E., & Weismer, P. (2016). Technology implementation and curriculum engagement for children and youth who are deafblind. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(4), 462–473. https://www. jstor.org/stable/26235296

Lang, H. G., & Steely, D. (2003). Web-based science instruction for deaf students: What research says to the teacher. Instructional Science, 31(4–5), 277–298. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41953621

Lapinski, S., Gravel, J. W., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Tools for practice: The universal design for learn- ing guidelines. In T. E. Hall, A. Meyer, & D. H. Rose (Eds.), Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications (pp. 9–24). Guilford Press.

Levac, D., Colquhoun H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. https://doi. org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Mangiatordi, A., & Serenelli, F. (2013). Universal design for learning: A meta-analytic review of 80 abstracts from peer reviewed journals. Research on Education and Media, 5(1), 109–118.

Mapepa, P., & Magano, M. D. (2018). Support to address barriers to learning for learners who are deaf. African Journal of Disability, 7, Article 381. https://ajod.org/index.php/ajod/article/view/381

McIntosh, A., Sulzen, L., Reeder, K., & Kidd, D. H. (1994). Making science accessible to deaf stu- dents: The need for science literacy and concep- tual teaching. American Annals of the Deaf, 139(5), 480–484. https://doi.org/10.1353/ aad.1994.0007

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Univer- sal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

Miller, B., & Satsangi, R. (2018). Ramps, balls, and measuring distance—for all: Ensuring meaning- ful access to science curriculum for students with physical disabilities. Science and Children, 55(5), 48–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44709902

Nikolaraizi, M., & Vekiri, I. (2012). The design of a software to enhance the reading comprehension skills of deaf students: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Education and Informa- tion Technologies, 17(2), 167–185. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10639-011-9152-1

Nikolaraizi, M., Vekiri, I., & Easterbrooks, S. (2013). Investigating deaf students’ use of visual multi- media resources in reading comprehension. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(5), 458–473. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26234861

Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D. (2017). Universal design for learning in Pre-K to grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 25(2), 116–138. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450

Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sergeant, J. M, Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123

Roald, I. (2002). Norwegian deaf teachers’ reflections on their science education: Implications for instruction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Edu- cation, 7(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/ deafed/7.1.57

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ971753.pdf

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

Vesel, J., & Robillard, T. (2013). Teaching mathemat- ics vocabulary with an interactive signing math dictionary. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(4), 361–389. https://doi.org/10.108 0/15391523.2013.10782610

Vesel, J., & Robillard, T. (2017). Accessing science museum exhibits with interactive signing dictionaries. Journal of Visual Literacy, 36(3–4), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2017. 1397310

Wang, Y., & Paul, P. V. (2011). Integrating technology and reading instruction with children who are deaf or hard of hearing: The effectiveness of the Cornerstones Project. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(1), 56–68. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/26235126

American Annals of the Deaf.indb 502American Annals of the Deaf.indb 502 12/3/2022 5:53:05 PM12/3/2022 5:53:05 PM

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.