What Next for Universal Design for Learning? A Systematic Literature Review PDF

Received: 14 July 2022 | Accepted: 5 April 2023 DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13328 ORIGINAL ARTICLE What next for Universal Design for Learning? A systematic literature review of technology in UDL implementations at second level Aibhin Bray1 | Ann Devitt1 | Joanne Banks1 |...

Received: 14 July 2022 | Accepted: 5 April 2023 DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13328 ORIGINAL ARTICLE What next for Universal Design for Learning? A systematic literature review of technology in UDL implementations at second level Aibhin Bray1 | Ann Devitt1 | Joanne Banks1 | 2 1 Sergio Sanchez Fuentes | Marta Sandoval | 3 Katerina Riviou | Darren Byrne | Margaret Flood5 4 | Jean Reale1 | Silvia Terrenzio6 1 School of Education, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Abstract Ireland In the last two decades, there has been a global move- 2 Faculty of Teacher Training & Education, ment towards pedagogies that create more inclusive Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain school environments in order to meet the needs of 3 Ellinogermaniki Agogi, Athens, Greece diverse learners. One such approach is Universal 4 St Joseph's Secondary School, Rush, Design for Learning (UDL), which foregrounds the Dublin, Ireland design of flexible and accessible learning experi- 5 Department of Education, Maynooth ences for all, regardless of learner characteristics. University, Maynooth, Ireland Technology is a key enabler in this. To date, much 6 CVO Vitant, Antwerp, Belgium of the research on UDL has focused on its impact in Correspondence higher education, with less evidence available on the Aibhin Bray, School of Education, Trinity use of UDL within second-­level education. This sys- College Dublin, The University of Dublin, tematic literature review of n = 15 empirical studies Dublin 2, Ireland. Email: [email protected] selected from a wide-­ranging search that returned an initial result of n = 1253 explores how the affordances Funding information Erasmus+ of digital technology have been harnessed for UDL enactment at second level. The findings show that, to date, empirical research at second level has focused mostly on the easy wins within the UDL principle of Representation, where educators offer choice about how learners access content. However, there is a clear gap in UDL research on the use of technologies to support the Engagement and Action & Expression principles of UDL, supporting student self-­regulation and self-­ assessment, and on technology-­ mediated This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2023 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Educational Research Association. Br J Educ Technol. 2024;55:113–138.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bjet | 113 114 |    BRAY et al. communication and collaboration. The paper high- lights the potential for future cross-­pollination of re- search in educational technology with UDL. KEYWORDS inclusion, second-­level education, technology, Universal Design for Learning Practitioner Notes What is already known about this topic Universal Design for Learning has been extensively researched in higher educa- tion and special education contexts but much less so at K-­12, in particular at sec- ond level. Technology offers many affordances that can provide choice and variation in the learning process, which can be harnessed in a UDL approach. The transformative potential of technology in educational contexts was not fully realised pre- ­COVID. The COVID pandemic saw an acceleration in technology adoption for learning, but it remains to be seen whether technology is being deployed to complement or transform existing practices. What this paper adds This paper clearly identifies which affordances of technology are commonly de- ployed in UDL implementations, particularly noting the provision of choice through multi-­media options for Representation and expression. There is a clear gap in UDL research on the use of technologies to support self-­ regulation and self-­assessment, (eg, peer, teacher and automated feedback tools) and on technology-­mediated communication and collaboration. The UDL literature does not address the potential negative impacts of technology within the learning context or the short-­lived nature of positive impacts (novelty effect). Implications for practice and/or policy While technology affords great opportunities for choice and Engagement, the design of the learning experience must take priority, availing of technology as needed. There are great opportunities for cross-­pollination of research at the forefront of educational technology and universal design to address any gaps in technology use in UDL implementations. I NTRO DUCTI O N The importance of an education system that is inclusive of every learner is widely acknowl- edged at an international level (UNESCO, 2016). International education policy is increas- ingly emphasising the need for national education systems to provide inclusive and equitable education for every student (eg, United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities; United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child; and United Nations WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING?    | 115 Sustainable Development Goals). While particular attention is often paid to the most vul- nerable students, an approach to education that is inclusive is increasingly recognised as beneficial for all pupils (Global Education Monitoring Report Team, 2020). Reflecting these changes in international conventions and national education policies, many systems have begun to explore ways in which innovative pedagogy can promote more inclusive education practice (Evans et al., 2015; Jwad et al., 2022; Takacs & Zhang, 2020). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is one such framework intended to guide the design and implemen- tation of flexible and supportive learning experiences to meet the needs of all learners (Meyer et al., 2014). UDL emphasises the design of learning experiences to support student Engagement, interaction and learning, whatever their profile (Abell et al., 2011). Over the past two decades, education systems around the world have begun to use UDL as part of their education policy, curriculum development and teacher education. It is now included in educational policy in the United States (Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) and the Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008)). South Africa has also committed to inclusive education through its education policy and considers UDL a significant element of this pro- cess (McKenzie & Dalton, 2020). Australia has begun to apply the principles of UDL within its national curriculum (Evans et al., 2015), and in Ireland, recent curriculum reform has both implicitly and explicitly referred the importance of UDL in teaching and learning (Flood & Banks, 2021). Furthermore, UDL has been noted as an appropriate framework for inclusive education in the Standards for Initial Teacher Education (Teaching Council, 2020) and in further and higher education (Quirke & McCarthy, 2020). Despite the growing interest in UDL in education policy, there is a gap in the evidence base on the effectiveness of UDL on student outcomes and little understanding of the role technology can play in UDL implementation across different sectors of education (King-­ Sears et al., 2023). Where research has been undertaken, the main focus has been in higher education and the on aspects of UDL related to the creation of flexible instructional goals, methods, materials and assignments (Smith et al., 2019). Internationally, there are numer- ous studies relating to the application of UDL in diverse educational systems and at different educational stages (Fovet, 2022; Jwad et al., 2022; Mackey, 2019). Much of the literature and evidence base stems from the United States and other developed countries however, and there is a notable lack of understanding of the scope and potential of UDL in developing countries. Furthermore, not all educational stages have been afforded the same level of focus; second-­level education is one of the least studied areas in the field. Although there is a strong literature base promoting the application of UDL, particularly within the field of special education, there is less robust evidence of its effectiveness in improving the learning process for every learner whatever their profile (Ok et al., 2017; Rao et al., 2014). The situation produced by COVID-­19, and the resulting migration of the education sys- tem to a virtual or hybrid modality, has resulted in many challenges and opportunities for educators (OECD, 2021a). Several studies have attempted to explore this issue within the context of UDL, with a clear focus on the use of technology as a fundamental axis in a model where accessibility and flexibility are the premises to achieve a better education for all (Basham et al., 2020; Dickinson & Gronseth, 2020; Hu & Huang, 2022; Kilpatrick et al., 2021). There is clearly immense potential for technology to be used to provide options and choice in how to present material, how to express learning and how to engage with edu- cation. Furthermore, there is extensive research in the wider education and technology field on the use of technology to support particular aspects of the learning process highlighted in UDL such as self-­regulated learning (Willems et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2016). However, as noted by Edyburn (2010), ‘technology is simply the delivery system’ (p. 37) and there needs to be intentionality in the design of the intervention and in how technology is integrated within the UDL framework. 116 |    BRAY et al. The aim of this paper was to examine how and where technology has been deployed to intentionally support UDL implementations in second-­level education and to identify areas where technology may offer opportunities for UDL that have not been exploited in the re- search to date. Using evidence from a systematic literature review (SLR) it focuses on the following research question: what are the affordances of technology in supporting effective UDL implementations? LITE R ATUR E R E V I E W Universal design for learning Over the past two decades, UDL has become a key pedagogical framework which seeks to address the traditional ‘one size fits all’ curriculum that exists in many countries (Meyer et al., 2014). UDL addresses inclusive education proactively by assuming a level of student variability in each classroom and building in flexibility and choice in how students engage and take part in the learning process. The framework was designed by the US organisation, CAST, in the 1980s and is based on a set of three principles: multiple means of Engagement where students are provided with multiple ways to engage in learning; multiple means of Representation where students are provided with choice in how they access their learning; and multiple means of action & expression where students are given choice and flexibility in how they demonstrate or share their learning. For a detailed description of the guidelines, checkpoints and each of the principles, see www.cast.org or Flood and Banks (2021). Despite the growing interest in UDL amongst the education policy community and its grad- ual emergence in initial teacher education and professional learning (Rao & Okolo, 2018), there is little evidence of the effectiveness of UDL in improving student outcomes and Engagement (Flood & Banks, 2021; Rao et al., 2014). The focus tends to be on the principle of Representation with less focus on Engagement or the student outcomes as a result of the UDL implementation (Capp, 2020; Flood & Banks, 2021). Affordances of technology in education Core to the discussion of technology in support of inclusive educational practice is the notion of ‘affordance’, coined in 1979 by Gibson (1979) and widely used in design, in particular for technology. An affordance is not a characteristic of an object or tool, although the term is often used imprecisely in this way (Norman, 2013); it is a relationship between an object and a person (or more generally, agent) in a particular environment. Therefore, the same object can have different affordances for different people in different environments. If we consider the example of a fountain pen, this tool typically affords writing to an individual. However, in a no-­gravity environment, it does not. Similarly, if the person cannot hold the pen in a writ- ing grip for some reason (broken arm, paralysis, etc), the pen may not afford writing, but a speech recognition system may do so. This example serves to highlight that the capabilities of individuals within their environment are as important a consideration as the tool itself when thinking about how to best exploit technology for effective UDL implementations. The affordances of technology for learning are as diverse as technology itself. Within the framework of sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), the affordances of technology can be harnessed such that the technology is used as a mediating tool for learning. Technology can be utilised to mediate a wide range of functions: the tasks learners do (eg, text processing, multimedia artefact creation, calculations); how they plan what they will do and how they will learn (eg, planning and scheduling tools); sense-­making or the construction of understanding WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING?    | 117 (eg, mindmapping software); how they reflect on learning (eg, journaling tools); and the feed- back process to progress learning (eg, peer, teacher or automated feedback systems). In addition, many technological tools incorporate increasingly collaborative potential, which, when combined with learners using social media to support their learning, can also allow technology to mediate communication between learners, between learners and educators and between learners and others in the wider world (Jeong & Hmelo-­Silver, 2016). Such communication can be used for a range of purposes, such as Engagement with collab- orative tasks, provision of prompts or feedback, provision of emotional support or of an audience for outputs. The range of affordances can be deployed in numerous ways also to support the various dimensions of self-­regulated learning (Lai & Gu, 2011; Pintrich, 2004; Yot-­Domínguez & Marcelo, 2017), from meta-­cognitive regulation using planning tools, to motivation and environmental regulation using computer-­mediated communication and col- laboration technologies. However, despite its transformative potential, prior to the COVID-­19 pandemic, the impact of digital technologies in education was relatively limited and the potential of technology to transform teaching and learning had not been widely realised (OECD, 2016). Educators typically used technology to complement existing practices (Substitution and Augmentation in Puentedura's (2013) SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition) model) rather than looking to innovate new practices or experiences (Modification and Redefinition in the SAMR model). While UDL is not dependent on the use of technology, it offers a pedagogical approach within which the affordances of technology to address barriers to learning can be realised (Rose et al., 2012). This paper examines which technologies have been deployed and to what ends in UDL implementation in secondary education contexts. Building on the findings of the SLR, we also aim to identify where technology offers opportunities for teaching and learning that have not yet been harnessed in UDL implementations. M ATER I A LS A N D M ETH O DS The goal of this study was to review empirical research that discusses the use of digital technology to support Universal Design for Learning (UDL), with a particular focus on the second-­level education sector. This review is one element of a broader project exploring the evidence base for effective UDL implementations at second level. Owing to the objec- tive, transparent and reproducible nature of its data collection and analysis, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), was identified as the most appropriate approach to achieve this goal. SLRs have become increasingly common within education research, and they are fre- quently used to support policy decisions (Jones & Gatrell, 2014; Tranfield et al., 2003). The overall review followed the style of a Cochrane systematic review (Higgins & Green, 2011), using EPPI Reviewer software to support the process.1 Search procedure To address the wider project goal to explore the evidence base for UDL at second level, the search procedure was broad and inclusive, drawing results from five relevant data- bases: Academic Search Complete, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, ERIC (ProQuest), JSTOR and PsycInfo. Initial search terms included all variations of the terms Universal Design for Learning or UDL in the titles or abstracts of academic papers and reports across these databases (Table 1). The search was conducted on 12 May 2021 and used a very open search strategy in order to return the widest range of papers possible. No 118 |    BRAY et al. TA B L E 1 Terms and syntax of searches. Database/repository Terms searched Limiter Results Academic Search TI universal design for learning OR Peer reviewed 415 Complete AB universal design for learning OR TI UDL OR AB UDL Applied Social Sciences ab(Universal design for learning) OR Peer reviewed 120 Index and Abstracts ti(Universal design for learning) OR ab(UDL) OR ti(UDL) ERIC (ProQuest) ab(universal design for learning) OR Peer reviewed 531 ti(universal design for learning) OR ab(UDL) OR ti(UDL) JSTOR (((ti:(universal design for learning) OR Papers’ research reports 48 ab:(universal design for learning)) OR ti:(UDL)) OR ab:(UDL)) PsycInfo TI universal design for learning OR Peer reviewed 139 AB universal design for learning OR TI UDL OR AB UDL Duplicates −430 Total 823 time constraint was placed on the search, so the time period of the study is up to mid-­2021. In the title and abstract screening, those including a technology focus were tagged and fol- lowing the full screening process, those tagged papers were included in this systematic re- view. In addition to the databases, hand searches were conducted to ensure that no relevant papers were missed. Following this search process, and the removal of duplicates, a total of 823 papers remained for screening. Screening process The results of the initial search were imported into EndNote and EPPI Reviewer in prepara- tion for the screening process. In order to ensure consistency across the reviews, the first phase involved a review cross-­validation phase with five of the authors screening a sample of 10% of the references by title and abstract screening based on the inclusion criteria in Table 2. Authors paired with at least two others during this phase to compare their results and agree concrete parameters for operationalising the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The re- maining papers were then distributed for screening and also coded for the education level in focus. In total, 193 papers met the broad inclusion criteria. Of these, 64 (n = 64) focused on secondary education settings and were included for full-­text screening. Details of the search and screening process are laid out in the Prisma flowchart in Figure 1. The full-­text screening involved three steps: 1. Screening for the general and school-­ level inclusion criteria (Table 2). 2. Quality appraisal using quality assessment coding tools available within EPPI reviewer to ensure that only the most trustworthy, methodologically sound and pertinent studies were included in the final review. 3. Data extraction of the key characteristics (sample, context, etc) of the included papers. Full-­text screening began with a coding workshop in which the full reviewing team went through the screening and data extraction process for two papers together. In this WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING?    | 119 TA B L E 2 Inclusion/exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria English language Languages other than English Focus on an empirical study of a Universal Design for Purely theoretical or descriptive account of UDL Learning intervention in a real-­world setting with no empirical element Use of qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods Descriptive, theoretical or review papers methodological approach School-­level inclusion criteria School-­level exclusion criteria Focused on learners in the age range 11–­19 Focused on learners under 11 or over 19 Technology used to facilitate UDL No technology used to facilitate UDL FIGURE 1 Prisma flowchart of systematic review process. 120 |    BRAY et al. way, the team developed a shared understanding of the codes and the coding process in EPPI reviewer. Subsequent to the coding workshop, the papers were allocated across the seven authors for full-­text screening where the reviewers read each paper thoroughly and completed the three screening steps above. The quality assessment followed an approach suggested by Harden and Gough (2012) and used three quality assessment tools available within EPPI Reviewer to explore the quality of evidence in each paper, according to their methodological approach (qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods). However, given the small number of papers identified in the screening process, no pa- pers were excluded on the basis of this appraisal. Following the full-­text screening, a total of 22 papers were included for final review, of which 15 (n = 15) address the research question that is the focus of this paper: what are the affordances of technology in sup- porting effective UDL implementations? The authors acknowledge the small sample size as a limitation in this paper and argue this is a result of keeping the search terms within second-­level education and related to technology, where there is scant evidence-­based research. Coding, data extraction For each paper reviewed, key methodological and outcome information was extracted (see Appendix A), in line with UDL reporting guidelines (Rao et al., 2018). In order to identify the ways in which technology has been used to effectively support implementations of UDL in the second-­level education sector, a combination of deductive and inductive coding was used to qualitatively analyse the 15 papers. The papers were imported into the qualitative data analysis tool, NVivo 12,2 and three codes relating to the three categories of UDL guide- lines, were added as pre-­defined nodes to direct the analysis. A directed content analysis approach (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) was taken, combined with a more emergent, open cod- ing within each of these categories, using the constant comparative technique of Strauss and Corbin (2008). Following the process of open coding, a deductive technique was used to match specific UDL checkpoints with the sections of coded text. Examples of this for each UDL Category are provided in Table 3 below. R ESULTS General information The study and participant details for the 15 papers reviewed are set out in Appendix A. All of the research reported in the 15 papers is US-­based. Twelve of the 15 settings de- scribed were mainstream schools (although there was frequently a focus on SEN or diversity within the cohort) and two were in out-­of-­school settings (Museum: Basham et al. (2010) and Library: Robinson (2017)). One study explored the content of online courses from the Khan Academy. The scale and scope of the research varied widely between the papers, ranging from a small-­scale case study of five participants (Robinson, 2017) to studies involving multi- ple schools (Ender et al., 2007) and over a thousand students (Marino, 2009; Marino et al., 2010). No particular trends in relation to ethnicity or socio-­economic status of the par- ticipants were evident. Given the diversity of design, the research methodologies and instru- ments were also wide ranging, including design-­based research (Basham et al., 2010; Daley et al., 2016), documentary analysis (Smith & Harvey, 2014), Quasi-­experimental studies WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING?    | 121 TA B L E 3 Steps in coding process. 1. UDL 2. Emergent 3. UDL Paper Coded segment category code checkpoints Daley et al. (2016, ‘Optional supports included Multiple Means of Guidance and 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 p. 127) “hint” buttons that Representation Support provided context-­ specific guidance’ Hitchcock ‘The process of developing Multiple Means Multimedia (video-­ 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 et al. (2016, their writing slide-­by-­ of Action & ppt- ­collage-­ p. 18) slide and using the Expression blog) photos on each slide to generate writing in PowerPoint was helpful for those students who were often overwhelmed by the writing process when presented with a blank piece of paper’ Marino ‘Students could also Multiple Means of Relevance and 7.1 et al. (2014, alter the sound and in Engagement authenticity p. 91) some of the games the appearance of their avatar’ (Daley et al., 2020; Kennedy et al., 2014; King-­Sears & Johnson, 2020) and pre/posttest intervention studies (Hitchcock et al., 2016; Marino, 2009; Marino et al., 2010). The curriculum areas explored in the research were also diverse, with six studies falling into the category of STEM, three relating to literacy, two focused on history, one on social sciences and the remaining three unspecified. There is a steady increase in studies focusing on technology use in UDL implementations, with three pre-­2011 (two papers focused on one study), four between 2011 and 2015 and seven from 2016 to 2020. What are the affordances of technology in supporting effective UDL implementations? Overview Of the 15 papers that reported on the use of technology in their study, eight discussed bespoke technologies/software/interventions that had been designed using the princi- ples of UDL (Basham et al., 2010; Daley et al., 2020; Kennedy et al., 2014; King-­Sears & Johnson, 2020; Marino, 2009; Marino et al., 2010, 2014; McMahon et al., 2016). The types of technology discussed include a digital literacy platform (Daley et al., 2020); video games (Marino et al., 2014); multimedia-­based instructional modules known as content acquisition podcasts (CAPs) (Kennedy et al., 2014); a digital backpack that represents a combination of technologies (hi-­and low-­tech) that could be adapted according to the project and/or individual needs (Basham et al., 2010); a technology-­based astronomy curriculum (Alien Rescue) that uses a virtual space station and a dashboard to support student Engagement with the material (Marino, 2009; Marino et al., 2010); podcasts as an alternative to read-­ aloud testing accommodations (McMahon et al., 2016); and interactive videos (King-­Sears & Johnson, 2020). Three papers used existing technology to support the (re-­)design of an intervention to align with UDL: Daley et al. (2016) shared personal usage data from an 122 |    BRAY et al. existing online module in order to support students' help-­seeking behaviours; Hitchcock et al. (2016) employed the multimodal features of PowerPoint to support students devel- opment of expository writing skills in Science; and Robinson (2017) made use of various assistive technologies to support students in creating a video. The remaining four papers provided a broad overview of the potential for technology, when combined with UDL, to support systemic change (Ender et al., 2007), assessed the UDL alignment of the Khan Academy (Smith & Harvey, 2014), described the use of technology for UDL in very general terms (Abell et al., 2011) or only briefly alluded to UDL (Smith et al., 2020). The importance of technology in a UDL environment was explicitly noted in 10 of the papers, with some of the authors, such as Ender et al. (2007), considering digital technol- ogy an integral component of Universal Design for Learning. While Basham et al. (2010) concur that ‘At the heart of UDL is appropriate technology integration’ (p. 340), they have a more nuanced view of technology within the UDL framework as something that is pur- posefully designed to meet the needs of the students. The need for careful consideration of the kinds of technology that should be used—­‘what works, for whom and under what conditions’ (Edyburn et al., 2017, p. 369)—­is echoed the work of Kennedy et al. (2014) and Marino (2009). The affordances of technology identified in the papers were manifold, but all emphasised supports for personalised learning and choice. The 15 papers were coded according to whether the technology they discussed focused on Multiple Means of Representation (the ‘what’ of learning, n = 13), Multiple Means of Action/Expression (the ‘how’ of learning, n = 11) and/or Multiple Means of Engagement (the ‘why’ of learning, n = 11) (Table 4). The primary focus was on using technology for Representation (multiple references across 13 papers) with less emphasis on both Engagement and Action & Expression. Eight studies used the af- fordances of technology to address all three UDL pillars: multiple means of Representation, Action/Expression and Engagement. However, across all the papers, the primary focus was on at most two of these categories. The affordances of technology to support each of these categories are illustrated in Table 4 below. As regards the UDL checkpoints within each principle, fewer checkpoints associated with Engagement were identified within the papers included in this review. Indeed, explo- ration of the number of CAST checkpoints within each of the categories shows that: for Representation, nine of the 12 checkpoints were noted; for Action/Expression, five of the possible nine were identified; and for Engagement, only three of the 10 associated check- points were addressed (Table 5). Technology for Representation The most prevalent method of using the affordances of technology to support learners in relation to the ‘what’ of learning related to the provision of support and guidance. This was most frequently operationalised as additional information, hints or tips that the student could choose to access (CAST checkpoints 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1) (Abell et al., 2011; Basham et al., 2010; Daley et al., 2016; Marino, 2009; Marino et al., 2010, 2014; McMahon et al., 2016), but also included built-­in, explicit support through the use of multimedia (Hitchcock et al., 2016), and the use of feedback by way of system analytics to support help-­seeking behaviour (CAST checkpoint 3.3) (Daley et al., 2016). The use of multimedia to represent information in a variety of ways (CAST checkpoints 1.2, 1.3 and 2.5) was common across six papers, ranging from podcasts that included visual and textual information (Kennedy et al., 2014) to a two-­layered interface that provides one set of common tools (access to additional information, glossary, etc) and tools that vary according to the specific content under examination (Marino, 2009; Marino et al., 2010). TA B L E 4 Technology affordances for learning in UDL implementations. Technology for Engagement (n = 11) Technology for Representation (n = 13) Technology for Action & Expression (n = 11) Choice of Action, for example choice of Audio, for example facilitation of listening to text such as titles, Multimedia, for example students were response to open-­ended questions papers or written comments (Daley et al., 2020) encouraged to use video, presentation using text, audio or drawing (Daley software such as PowerPoint, collage et al., 2016) or blog posts to represent their learning (Hitchcock et al., 2016; Robinson, 2017) Choice of Content, for example use of a Video and video games, for example use of video resources Supports and starters, for example ‘dashboard’ to facilitate self-­directed for research (Robinson, 2017), or provision of opportunities to scaffolded problems (King-­Sears and learning (Daley et al., 2020) interact with material (Marino et al., 2014) Johnson, 2020; McMahon et al., 2016), Relevance and authenticity, for example Multimedia, for example content acquisition podcasts create templates, sentence starters and guidance use of a multimedia environment to meaningful representations of content through the use of images, (Dayley et al., 2020; Marino et al., 2014) supported students to demonstrate what WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING? support personal creativity in project audio and occasional on-­screen text to help facilitate learning work (Hitchcock et al., 2016) (Kennedy et al., 2014) they had learned Scaffolding and support, for Text to speech, for example Daley et al. (2020), included a set example audio, textual and/or visual of controls for listening to the on-­screen content; Hitchcock explanations of scientific terms that can et al. (2016) encouraged students to record their own writing and be accessed by clicking on the word on listen back to it; and McMahon et al. (2016) used podcasts for screen (Marino, 2009) read-­aloud test-­administration Translation, for example Spanish translations of text in Dayley et al. (2020) Customisation of text size, for example text enlargement in Abell et al. (2011) Guidance and support, for example ‘hint’ buttons for the provision of context-­specific guidance (Dayley et al., 2016) The different colour shading reflects the three principals of the UDL framework (https://udlguidelines.cast.org/).    | 123 TA B L E 5 Checkpoints identified in the review. 124 | Provide multiple means of engagement Provide multiple means of Representation Provide multiple means of Action & Expression    Provide options for Provide options for perception Provide options for Physical Action recruiting interest Optimise individual Offer ways of customising the display of information Vary the methods for response and navigation (checkpoint 4.1) choice and autonomy (checkpoint 1.1) ✓ (checkpoint 7.1) ✓ Optimise relevance, Offer alternatives for auditory information Optimise access to tools and assistive technologies (checkpoint 4.2) value and authenticity (checkpoint 1.2) ✓ (checkpoint 7.2) ✓ Minimise threats and Offer alternatives for visual information (checkpoint 1.3) distractions (checkpoint ✓ 7.3) Provide options for Provide options for Language & Symbols (guideline 2) Provide options for Expression & Communication (guideline 5) Sustaining Effort & Persistence (guideline 8) Heighten salience of Clarify vocabulary and symbols (checkpoint 2.1) ✓ Use multiple media for communication (checkpoint 5.1) ✓ goals and objectives (checkpoint 8.1) Vary demands and resources Clarify syntax and structure (checkpoint 2.2) ✓ Use multiple tools for construction and composition (checkpoint 5.2) ✓ to optimise challenge (checkpoint 8.2) Foster collaboration and Support decoding of text, mathematical notation and Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and community (checkpoint symbols (checkpoint 2.3) performance (checkpoint 5.3) ✓ 8.3) Increase mastery- ­oriented Promote understanding across languages feedback (checkpoint 8.4) (checkpoint 2.4) ✓ Illustrate through multiple media (checkpoint 2.5) ✓ Provide options for Self-­ Provide options for Comprehension (guideline 3) Provide options for Executive Functions (guideline 6) regulation (guideline 9) BRAY et al. TA B L E 5 (Continued) Provide multiple means of engagement Provide multiple means of Representation Provide multiple means of Action & Expression Promote expectations and Activate or supply background knowledge Guide appropriate goal-­setting (checkpoint 6.1) beliefs that optimise (checkpoint 3.1) ✓ motivation (checkpoint WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING? 9.1) Facilitate personal coping Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas and Support planning and strategy development (checkpoint 6.2) ✓ skills and strategies relationships (checkpoint 3.2) (checkpoint 9.2) Develop self-­assessment Guide information processing and visualisation Facilitate managing information and resources (checkpoint 6.3) ✓ and reflection (checkpoint 3.3) ✓ (checkpoint 9.3) ✓ Maximise transfer and generalisation (checkpoint 3.4) Enhance capacity for monitoring progress (checkpoint 6.4) The different colour shading reflects the three principals of the UDL framework (https://udlguidelines.cast.org/).    | 125 126 |    BRAY et al. The potential of incorporating video and/or audio as alternatives to the traditional print Representation of content was widely discussed (Abell et al., 2011; Basham et al., 2010; Daley et al., 2016; King-­Sears & Johnson, 2020; Marino, 2009; Robinson, 2017), with text-­ to-­speech functionality specifically addressed by Daley et al. (2020), Hitchcock et al. (2016), Marino et al. (2014) and McMahon et al. (2016). Other affordances of technology that were classified under multiple means of Representation related to the ability to adapt the size of text/visuals (Abell et al., 2011) and embedded translation (Daley et al., 2020) (CAST check- points 1.1 and 2.4). Technology for Engagement According to Daley et al. (2016), ‘in the UDL framework the approach to learner variability hinges on providing options and supporting learners to make their own choices about use of those options’ (p. 126). In relation to multiple means of Engagement, this analysis found good evidence of technology being used to offer choice and autonomy (CAST checkpoint 7.1) to students in terms of the content that they accessed and the actions that they could take. In many cases, this overlapped with how technology supported multiple means of Representation, in that the students could choose whether or not to engage with particular content for support and guidance (Daley et al., 2016, 2020; Marino, 2009; Marino et al., 2010; Robinson, 2017). Similarly, choice of action overlapped significantly with multiple means of Action/Expression, in that the use of technology afforded students greater choice in how they could express their learning (Daley et al., 2016, 2020; Hitchcock et al., 2016; Marino et al., 2014; Robinson, 2017; Smith et al., 2020). Unsurprisingly, the provision of technologi- cal tools that support students' Engagement with material in ways that suit their strengths and address their needs tended to lead to higher levels of Engagement and confidence (Hitchcock et al., 2016). Six of the papers reviewed indicated that when students were provided with options re- lating to the supports, scaffolds and feedback they could engage with, and how they might choose to do so, it could lead to higher levels of comprehension, self-­assessment and re- flection (CAST checkpoint 9.3) (Daley et al., 2016, 2020; Hitchcock et al., 2016; King-­Sears & Johnson, 2020; Marino, 2009; McMahon et al., 2016). The use of technology to increase the relevance and authenticity (CAST Checkpoint 7.2) of the activities was noted in two papers. Hitchcock et al. (2016) highlighted that the choice afforded by the multimedia nature of the activity gave students the opportunity to ‘integrate their own personalities into the projects’ (p. 20), and Marino et al. (2014) indicate that the opportunities for personalisation within the game, as well as the nature of the gameplay, led to heightened levels of connection and relevance for the students. Technology for Action/Expression The Principle of Action & Expression (the ‘how’ of learning) was referenced least in the review papers. Eight of the papers commented on how technology could offer multiple mo- dalities for students to represent their learning (CAST Checkpoints 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3). Options discussed included digital collages, video clips, audio, text, drawing or various combina- tions thereof within a multimedia environment (Abell et al., 2011; Basham et al., 2010; Daley et al., 2016, 2020; Hitchcock et al., 2016; Marino, 2009; Robinson, 2017; Smith et al., 2020). In addition to offering students diverse ways to express their learning, technology was also utilised to offer support for action & expression through various supports and scaffolding (CAST Checkpoints 5.3, 6.2 and 6.3). For example, Daley et al. (2020) refer to the optional WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING?    | 127 use of ‘sentence starters’ (p. 283) to support students who want to type their responses; King-­Sears and Johnson (2020) and Marino et al. (2014) refer to the use of scaffolding for problems, with levels of support adapted according to the students' level of proficiency; and McMahon et al. (2016) discuss how the use of podcast read-­aloud encourages planning and strategy development by giving students the option to decide the order in which they answer questions. D I SCUSS I O N This paper highlights the growing research interest in the use of technology to support UDL implementations, with an increasing number of empirical research papers published in re- cent years. While technology is not considered a requirement for UDL (Rose et al., 2012); the research findings from this review suggest that the affordances of technology can make some aspects of teaching and learning considerably more inclusive for all learners. In par- ticular, the research illustrates how the multi-­modal nature of technology allows for greater choice across the UDL guidelines and, where this choice aspect is enhanced, how greater student Engagement can be achieved. The authors acknowledge several limitations to an SLR as a method to explore phenom- enon in education. As mentioned above, the sample size of the papers selected is small as a result of the strict search criteria used, particularly, the narrowing of the focus to second-­ level education and interventions where technology was used. Although a limitation, this narrow focus allowed for the in-­depth understand of the literature available and allowed the authors to identify gaps. Analysis of the papers included in this review demonstrates the importance and value of technology in the implementation of UDL at second level. The papers reviewed show how the affordances of technology have been widely used to offer choice and to inject more fun and authenticity into the learning, most commonly reflecting the UDL principle of Representation. Considerations of more student-­centred activities such as collaboration, managing focus in relation to learning goals, and developing student behaviours and coping skills have been less well addressed. This reflects a tendency within the research into UDL at second level, on aspects of the environment that are within the control of the educator (flexible instructional goals, methods, materials, etc) (Smith et al., 2019), which may be at- tributable to the fact that many education systems are only at the beginning of their UDL journey. In addition, few of the papers acknowledge the need to consider student capacity and skill set when engaging with technology in UDL (Basham et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2014; Marino, 2009; OECD, 2016). This demonstrates a clear shortfall in the research which gives little acknowledgement of the key role of learner capabilities in context when using technol- ogy to mediate learning (Gibson, 1979; Norman, 2013; Vygotsky, 1978). The widespread use of diverse media to provide multiple means of Representation is reflective of this, in- dicating a base assumption that more choice is better. There is little consideration of the increase in cognitive load (Sweller, 1988) imposed by multiple means of Representation within the papers. Although multimedia can enhance the learning where the environment is well-­designed, if it is not integrated and scaffolded appropriately, it can place an addi- tional cognitive load on learners which can be distracting and detrimental to learning (Jamet et al., 2020; Mayer, 2014). Clearly, when providing choice, instructional designers and ed- ucators must be conscious to follow design principles that support learners to avail of the options most appropriate to them. One way of addressing these issues could be through explicit emphasis on some of the UDL checkpoints that can provide the constraints to manage cognitive load. This might 128 |    BRAY et al. include a focus on, for example checkpoint 6.3 within Action & Expression—­facilitate manag- ing information and resources, or checkpoint 7.3 in Engagement—­minimise threats and dis- tractions. Within the category of Representation, an increased focus on the Comprehension checkpoints such as ‘highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships’ (check- point 3.2), should also help to address issues around cognitive load, without simply providing more options to learners. Another critique of the research reviewed relates to the lack of emphasis on the UDL principle of Engagement. It is particularly notable that none of the papers explore the role of technology in fostering collaboration and community between learners (checkpoint 8.3). This is somewhat surprising given that the social dimension of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2020) and learning (Vygotsky, 1986) have become increasingly well theorised and explored in recent times. The explosion in social media and collaborative technologies over recent years provides a wealth of tools that offer learners the affordance of connection and co-­presence with others during the learning process, to enhance motivation and provide support in a range of ways (Allen et al., 2014; Blaschke, 2014; Bulu, 2012). More recently, during the COVID-­19 school closures, digital technologies were essential in maintaining connectedness and Engagement with learners in online schooling (Bray et al., 2021). Even in a face-­to-­face setting, collaborative technologies can be used constructively to support learning (Nussbaum et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2021). It is important to note, however, that the use of social media in an educational setting with adolescents is complex. Although there can be positive outcomes, such as providing support and meaningful connection with peers, significant negative associations from cyberbullying, negative self-­image and sleep depriva- tion to anxiety and depression have also been identified (Viner et al., 2019). The evidence base for what constitutes appropriate social media use is growing and should be addressed intentionally before using such platforms within a UDL context (Van Den Beemt et al., 2020). A further gap in the literature identified through this review relates to the development of student self-­ regulation and sustaining effort and persistence (checkpoints 8 and 9). Although the UDL Engagement principle aims to foster these skills, they are not addressed explicitly in the papers examined. These skills develop when students are well scaffolded and supported (Boekaerts & Cascallar, 2006; Hawe & Dixon, 2017) and are given the op- portunity for reflection (Masui & De Corte, 2005)—­aspects of learning for which technology has been used for some time (Lin et al., 1999). Learning management systems (LMSs) can be used to offer formalised mechanisms for clarifying and refining goals of learning and providing feedback (checkpoints 6.1, 6.4, 8.1, 8.4 and 9.3), for example through the use of rubrics (Andrade, 2007). The tools to support feedback are well established for facilitating teacher and peer feedback. Emergent technologies that make use of artificial intelligence and natural language processing to generate automated feedback, or more comprehensive Intelligent Tutoring Systems are less well advanced but may, in the future, offer learners timely and focused feedback to maintain Engagement and focus on their learning goals (OECD, 2021b). Indeed, as noted in the literature review, technology offers learners many affordances to develop self-­regulated learning capacities, but it also often demands that learners become more self-­regulated to avail of the opportunities for learning through tech- nology, in particular in online and blended learning contexts. The UDL community needs to harness the existing evidence base on technologies to support self-­regulated learning (Yot-­ Domínguez & Marcelo, 2017). LI M ITATI O NS A N D FURTH E R R ESE A RCH All research is subject to limitations, and despite its rigorous approach, systematic literature review is no exception. While every effort was made to ensure that all relevant papers were WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING?    | 129 identified through the use of an intentionally broad search strategy across five databases, two of which are multidisciplinary (Academic Search Complete and JSTOR), it is possible that expanding that to other databases may have exposed further relevant results. Publication bias is an acknowledged limitation of systematic reviews, with published re- search more likely to report positive results, which can limit the generalisability of the study. Similarly, the very nature of a review of this kind limits the data to extant research that does not necessarily reflect the situation in the real world. In addition, the scope of this particular review is quite narrow, in that it focuses solely on the affordances of technology in supporting UDL implementations and does not discuss the learning effectiveness or learning experiences of participants. However, this is part of a broader, cross-­sectoral study. A related paper, currently under review, focuses explicitly on the learning outcomes and effectiveness of UDL in formal educational settings (Devitt et al., 2023). CO NCLUS I O N This paper reports on the findings of a systematic literature review of 15 papers that consider the affordances of technology in the implementation of UDL at second level. The review identified key areas in which technology is being used to support UDL implementations. The findings show that, to date, empirical research at second level has focused mostly on technology and UDL implementations that prioritise the teacher perspective on UDL such as the ways in which choice is offered, or how they enable students to access content. This has resulted in significant research focus within the UDL principle of Representation, with con- siderably less emphasis on the other two principles: Engagement and Action & Expression. Within this context, there is a notable leaning towards multimedia tools, which can provide an easy win, allowing educators to provide choice in how content is communicated and ac- cessed. However, it is essential to be cognisant of the fact that technology can have positive and negative impacts. In future work, researchers should consider the impact of technology integration in relation to increased cognitive load, the effects of multi-­tasking and distrac- tions as well as the potential novelty effect of technology, which suggests that the positive impact of new media on learning may decrease over time (Clark, 1983). The findings of this review not only demonstrate the significant role of technology in UDL implementations but also identify gaps in particular domains of teaching and learning. In particular, this research suggests the need to extend the focus of technology in UDL implementations to include supports for students' self-­regulation (Engagement) and self-­ assessment (Action & Expression). The successful enactment of all three principles of UDL will require moving away from the relatively easy wins of providing learners with choice in how they engage with content and showcase their learning. While emerging technologies using artificial intelligence and machine learning, such as automated assessment and intel- ligent tutoring systems, have potential to provide support for learners within the principles of Engagement and Action & Expression, the quality and effectiveness of these systems still require evaluation. UDL considerations are hugely important for the development of new systems to ensure they are equitable by design (Miao et al., 2021). However, in addition to the design of the technology itself, it is important to bear in mind that tools have certain affordances in the context of specific environments and learners. Therefore, it is imperative that the design of an intervention, and how technology is integrated within it, is intentionally situated withing the UDL framework. This clearly indicates that there are significant opportunities in future empirical research for cross-­pollination between UDL and educational technology. Future research could, for example, map the impact of educational technology within a UDL context 130 |    BRAY et al. to the extent to which students self-­regulate their learning. Given the potential benefits of this, this paper suggests the need for large-­scale, quantitative or mixed-­methods research studies on the integration of UDL in second-­level educational contexts. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Open access funding provided by IReL. F U N D I N G I N F O R M AT I O N The UDL-­BOE project is co-­funded by the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. Grant number: 2020-­1-­IE01- ­K A226-­SCH- ­082934. C O N F L I C T O F I N T E R E S T S TAT E M E N T None of the authors has a conflict of interest to disclose. D ATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T Data sharing is not applicable to this paper as no datasets were generated or analysed dur- ing the current study. E T H I C S S TAT E M E N T Given the non-­empirical nature of this work (SLR), it was not bound by the ethical consid- erations associated with empirical studies involving human participants, such as voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm and results communication. The work was, however, bound by the ethical responsibility to conduct rigor- ous, academic research. ORCID Aibhin Bray https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2896-3020 Ann Devitt https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-0362 Joanne Banks https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2322-662X Sergio Sanchez Fuentes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8783-9911 Marta Sandoval https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1931-1872 Katerina Riviou https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6891-6563 Margaret Flood https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4869-5329 ENDNOTES 1 https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/CMS/Defau​lt.aspx?alias​=eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/er4 2 https://www.qsrin​terna​tional.com/nvivo​-­quali​tativ​e-­data-­analy​sis-­softw​are/home REFERENCES Abell, M. M., Jung, E., & Taylor, M. (2011). Students' perceptions of classroom instructional environments in the context of “Universal Design for Learning”. Learning Environments Research, 14(2), 171–­185. https://doi. org/10.1007/s1098​4 -­011-­9 090-­2 Allen, K. A., Ryan, T., Gray, D. L., McInerney, D. M., & Waters, L. (2014). Social media use and social connected- ness in adolescents: The positives and the potential pitfalls. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 31(1), 18–­31. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2014.2 Andrade, H. (2007). Self-­assessment through rubrics. Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A, 65(4), 60–­63. Basham, J. D., Blackorby, J., & Marino, M. T. (2020). Opportunity in crisis: The role of Universal Design for Learning in educational redesign. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 18(1), 71–­91. WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING?    | 131 Basham, J. D., Meyer, H., & Perry, E. (2010). The design and application of the digital backpack. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 339–­359. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391​523.2010.10782555 Blaschke, L. M. (2014). Using social media to engage and develop the online learner in self-­determined learning. Research in Learning Technology, 22(21635), 1–­23. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.21635 Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integration of theory and prac- tice in self-­regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 199–­210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1064​ 8-­0 06-­9 013-­4 Bray, A., Banks, J., Devitt, A., & Ní Chorcora, E. (2021). Connection before content: Using multiple perspectives to examine student engagement during Covid-­19 school closures in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 40(2), 431–­4 41. Bulu, S. T. (2012). Place presence, social presence, co-­presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Computers & Education, 58(1), 154–­161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2011.08.024 Capp, M. J. (2020). Teacher confidence to implement the principles, guidelines, and checkpoints of Universal Design for Learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(7), 706–­720. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445– ­459. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346​5 4305​3004445 Daley, S. G., Hillaire, G., & Sutherland, L. M. (2016). Beyond performance data: Improving student help seeking by collecting and displaying influential data in an online middle-­school science curriculum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 121–­134. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12221 Daley, S. G., Xu, Y., Proctor, C. P., Rappolt-­Schlichtmann, G., & Goldowsky, B. (2020). Behavioral engage- ment among adolescents with Reading difficulties: The role of active involvement in a universally de- signed digital literacy platform. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(3), 278–­295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573​ 569.2019.1635545 Devitt, A., Banks, J., Bray, A., Sanchez-­Fuentes, S., Sandoval, M., Riviou, K., Terrenzio, S., Byrne, D., Reale, J., & Flood, M. (2023). Building evidence? A systematic literature review on the effectiveness of universal Design for Learning in second level education [Manuscript submitted for publication]. School of Education, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin. Dickinson, K. J., & Gronseth, S. L. (2020). Application of universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles to surgi- cal education during the COVID-­19 pandemic. Journal of Surgical Education, 77(5), 1008–­1012. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.06.005 Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize Universal Design for Learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–­41. Edyburn, D. L., Rao, K., & Hariharan, P. (2017). Technological practices supporting diverse students in inclusive settings. In M. T. Hughes & E. Talbott (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of diversity in special education (pp. 357–­ 377). Wiley. Ender, K. E., Kinney, B. J., Penrod, W. M., Bauder, D. K., & Simmons, T. (2007). Achieving systemic change with Universal Design for Learning and digital content. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 4(1), 115–­129. Evans, D., Humphreys, S., & Gray, G. (2015). Australian National Curriculum: Applications of the Principles of UDL. https://www.learn​ingde​signed.org/sites/​defau​lt/files/​Evans_Humph​reys_Gray_2015.pdf Flood, M., & Banks, J. (2021). Universal Design for Learning: Is it gaining momentum in Irish education? Education Sciences, 11(7), 341. Fovet, F. (2022). Review of the book creating inclusive learning opportunities in higher education: A universal design toolkit by Sheryl E Brugstahler. Teachers College Record (ID Number: 23971). Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin. Global Education Monitoring Report Team. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education-­all means all (3rd ed.). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Harden, A., & Gough, D. (2012). Quality and relevance appraisal. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage. Hawe, E., & Dixon, H. (2017). Assessment for learning: A catalyst for student self-­regulation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1181–­1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602​938.2016.1236360 Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. John Wiley & Sons. Hitchcock, C. H., Rao, K., Chang, C. C., & Yuen, J. W. L. (2016). TeenACE for science: Using multimedia tools and scaffolds to support writing. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 35(2), 10–­23. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568​ 70516​03500203 Hsieh, H.-­F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–­1288. Hu, H., & Huang, F. (2022). Application of Universal Design for Learning into remote English education in Australia amid COVID-­19 pandemic. International Journal on Studies in Education (IJonSE), 4(1), 55–­69. 132 |    BRAY et al. Jamet, E., Gonthier, C., Cojean, S., Colliot, T., & Erhel, S. (2020). Does multitasking in the classroom affect learn- ing outcomes? A naturalistic study. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2020.106264 Jeong, H., & Hmelo-­Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-­supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–­265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461​520.2016.1158654 Jones, O., & Gatrell, C. (2014). The future of writing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(3), 249–­264. Jwad, N., O'Donovan, M.-­A., Leif, E., Knight, E., Ford, E., & Buhne, J. (2022). Universal Design for Learning in ter- tiary education: A scoping review and recommendations for implementation in Australia. Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training. https://www.adcet.edu.au/resou​rce/10814/​unive​rsal-design-for- learn​ing-in-terti​ary-educa​tion-a-scopi​ng-review-and-recom​menda​tions Kennedy, M. J., Thomas, C. N., Meyer, J. P., Alves, K. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (2014). Using evidence-­based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 71–­86. Kilpatrick, J. R., Ehrlich, S., & Bartlett, M. (2021). Learning from COVID-­19: Universal Design for Learning Implementation Prior to and during a pandemic. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1), 1–­17. King-­Sears, M. E., & Johnson, T. M. (2020). Universal Design for Learning Chemistry Instruction for students with and without learning disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 41(4), 207–­218. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419​ 32519​862608 King-­Sears, M. E., Stefanidis, A., Evmenova, A. S., Rao, K., Mergen, R. L., Owen, L. S., & Strimel, M. M. (2023). Achievement of learners receiving UDL instruction: A meta-­analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122, 103956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103956 Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). Self-­regulated out-­of-­class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317–­335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588​221.2011.568417 Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–­62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF022​99633 Mackey, M. (2019). Accessing middle school social studies content through Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 9(1), 81–­88. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2019.09.1.06 Marino, M. T. (2009). Understanding how adolescents with Reading difficulties utilize technology-­based tools. Exceptionality, 17(2), 88–­102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362​83090​2805848 Marino, M. T., Black, A. C., Hayes, M. T., & Beecher, C. C. (2010). An analysis of factors that affect struggling read- ers' achievement during a technology-­enhanced STEM astronomy curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 35–­47. Marino, M. T., Gotch, C. M., Israel, M., Vasquez, E., III, Basham, J. D., & Becht, K. (2014). UDL in the middle school science classroom: Can video games and alternative text heighten engagement and learning for students with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 87–­99. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319​ 48713​503963 Masui, C., & De Corte, E. (2005). Learning to reflect and to attribute constructively as basic components of self-­ regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 351–­372. https://doi.org/10.1348/00070​ 9905X​25030 Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 43–­71). Cambridge University Press. McKenzie, J. A., & Dalton, E. M. (2020). Universal Design for Learning in inclusive education policy in South Africa. African Journal of Disability, 9, 8. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v9i0.776 McMahon, D., Wright, R., Cihak, D., Moore, T., & Lamb, R. (2016). Podcasts on mobile devices as a read-­aloud testing accommodation in middle school science assessment. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 25(2), 263–­273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1095​6 -­015-­9591-­3 Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. T. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing. Miao, F., Holmes, W., Huang, R., & Zhang, H. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-­makers. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesd​oc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/​pf000​0376709 Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things. The MIT Press. Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-­to-­face collaborative scaffolding. Computers & Education, 52(1), 147–­153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compe​du.2008.07.005 OECD. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2021a). The state of global education: 18 months into the pandemic. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2021b). OECD digital education outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with artificial intelligence, blockchain and robots. OECD Publishing. WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING?    | 133 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. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-­regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–­407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1064​8 -­0 04-­0 006-­x Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation. In Paper presented at the 2013 AIS ICT Management and Leadership Conference Canberra, Australia. http://www.hippa​sus.com/rrpwe​ blog/archi​ves/2013/05/29/SAMRE​nhanc​ement​ToTra​nsfor​mation.pdf Quirke, M., & McCarthy, P. (2020). A conceptual framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) for the Irish further education and training sector. SOLAS. Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153–­166. Rao, K., & Okolo, C. (2018). Teacher education and professional development on UDL. https://www.learn​ingde​ signed.org/sites/​defau​lt/files/​Done_RAO.pdf Rao, K., Smith, S. J., Edyburn, D., Grima-­Farrell, C., Van Horn, G., & Yalom-­Chamowitz, S. (2018). UDL reporting criteria. Developed by a working group of the Universal Design for Learning implementation and research (UDL-­IRN) research committee. https://udl-­irn.org/udl-­repor ​ting- ­crite​ria/ Robinson, D. E. (2017). Universal Design for Learning and school libraries: A logical partnership. Knowledge Quest, 46(1), 56–­61. Rose, D. H., Gravel, J. W., & Domings, Y. M. (2012). UDL unplugged: The role of technology in UDL. In T. E. Hall, A. Meyer, & D. H. Rose (Eds.), Universal Design for Learning in the classroom: Practical applications (pp. 120–­134). Guilford Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-­determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedps​ych.2020.101860 Smith, S. J., & Harvey, E. E. (2014). K-­12 online lesson alignment to the principles of Universal Design for Learning: The khan academy. Open Learning, 29(3), 222–­242. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680​ 513.2014.992402 Smith, S. J., Lowrey, K. A., Rowland, A. L., & Frey, B. (2020). Effective technology supported writing strategies for learners with disabilities. Inc, 8(1), 58–­73. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326- ­6988- ­8.1.58 Smith, S. J., Rao, K., Lowrey, K. A., Gardner, J. E., Moore, E., Coy, K., Marino, M., & Wojcik, B. (2019). Recommendations for a national research agenda in UDL: Outcomes from the UDL-­IRN preconference on research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(3), 174–­185. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–­285. Takacs, S., & Zhang, J. (2020). Universal Design for Learning: A practical guide. Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Innovation, Justice Institute of British Columbia. Teaching Council. (2020). Céim: Standards for initial teacher education. The Teaching Council of Ireland. https://www.teach​i ngco​u ncil.ie/en/news-­event​s /lates​t -­n ews/ceim-­s tand​a rds-­f or-­i niti​a l-­t each​e r- ­e duca​ tion.pdf Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-­informed manage- ment knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–­222. UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of sus- tainable development goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Van Den Beemt, A., Thurlings, M., & Willems, M. (2020). Towards an understanding of social media use in the class- room: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(1), 35–­55. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759​ 39X.2019.1695657 Viner, R. M., Gireesh, A., Stiglic, N., Hudson, L. D., Goddings, A.-­L., Ward, J. L., & Nicholls, D. E. (2019). Roles of cyberbullying, sleep, and physical activity in mediating the effects of social media use on mental health and wellbeing among young people in England: A secondary analysis of longitudinal data. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 3(10), 685–­696. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352​- ­4642(19)30186​- ­5 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Tool and symbol in child development. In M. Cole, V. John-­Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society (pp. 19–­31). Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press. Wang, M., Devitt, A., Hodgins, G., & Bauer, C. (2021). Students intercultural sensitivity development through tele- collaborative Chinese language learning on zoom: A case study of Irish students at the beginning-­level of Chinese language. In Paper presented at the EUROCALL 2021: CALL and professionalisation: Short papers from EUROCALL 2021, Paris. 134 |    BRAY et al. Willems, P. P., Gonzalez-­DeHass, A. R., Powers, J. R., & Musgrove, A. (2021). The role of authentic teach- ing cases and mastery approach goals in online pre-­service teachers' self-­regulated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 1003–­1023. Yot-­Domínguez, C., & Marcelo, C. (2017). University students' self-­regulated learning using digital technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–­18. Zhu, Y., Au, W., & Yates, G. (2016). University students' self-­control and self-­regulated learning in a blended course. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 54–­62. How to cite this article: Bray, A., Devitt, A., Banks, J., Sanchez Fuentes, S., Sandoval, M., Riviou, K., Byrne, D., Flood, M., Reale, J., & Terrenzio, S. (2024). What next for Universal Design for Learning? A systematic literature review of technology in UDL implementations at second level. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55, 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13328 A PPE N D I X A Paper overviews Participant information Study Curriculum Research N° Year Authors Setting Sample (students) duration area methodology Research instruments 1. 2011 Abell et al. (2011) USA 867 Age range: 8–­18 N/A Diverse Survey Revised Individualised No. with low SES: not specified Classroom Environment No. with AEN: not specified Questionnaire (ICEQ- ­R) Gender: not specified Ethnicity: not specified 2. 2010 Basham USA 35 Age range: Upper high school 4–­5 h each Social sciences Design-­based All cycles: Participant et al. (2010) No. with low SES: not specified cycle research observations, video-­ No. with AEN: 1 (3 cycles) recorded observations, Gender: 13 male, 22 female field notes, student-­ Ethnicity: majority African generated artefacts. American Cycles 2 and 3: student surveys and interviews WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING? 3. 2016 Daley et al. (2016) USA 126 Age range: Grade 6 3– ­5 lessons Science Design-­based Electronic event usage log No. with low SES: School B: 63% research written student inquiry No. with AEN: 12 (1 cycle) questionnaires Gender: 52 male, 74 female Ethnicity: School A: 82% white, 15% Asian American. School B: 98% African American 4. 2020 Daley et al. (2020) USA 315 Age range: Grades 6–­8 1 year (1 h per Literacy: Reading Quantitative Quasi-­ Reading comprehension No. with low SES: 78% week) experimental, pre-­/posttests Digital No. with AEN: All, with 56% SEN pre–­posttest usage log in UDIO tool Gender: 63% male, 37% female design Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino: 36%, White: 31%, Black or African American: 26%, Asian or Pacific Islander: 2%, multiracial: 4%    | 135  136 | A PPE N D I X (Continued)    Participant information Study Curriculum Research N° Year Authors Setting Sample (students) duration area methodology Research instruments 5. 2007 Ender et al. (2007) USA 0 Age range: not specified 3 years Diverse Not specified Different evaluation No. with low SES: not specified instruments used No. with AEN: not specified in different schools. Gender: not specified School level: Staff and Ethnicity: not specified Student survey and interviews; classroom observations; reports; school, teacher and student products. Project Level: (a) Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ); (b) CATS scores and NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports; and (c) monthly and year-­end reports 6. 2016 Hitchcock USA 46 Age range: Grades 5–­8 12 weeks Literacy: Writing Mixed-­methods: Quant: pre-­/postwriting et al. (2016) No. with low SES: not specified within-­person pre/ tests: Woodcock No. with AEN: Classroom A: 11%, postintervention Johnson III, CBM Rubric Classroom B: 5% comparison and Teacher and Student Gender: not specified naturalistic case evaluations Qual: Ethnicity: Hawaiian/part-­Hawaiian: study teacher/student surveys 70–­85% and focus groups 7. 2014 Kennedy USA 141 Age range: Grade 10 8 weeks History Quasi-­experimental Pre-­test and posttest et al. (2014) No. with low SES: 83% study scores curriculum-­based No. with AEN: 32 measures-­probes of Gender: 76% male, 24% female terms/historical figures Ethnicity: 63.3% African American, and definitions 26.7% Hispanic, 10% Caucasian BRAY et al. A PPE N D I X (Continued) Participant information Study Curriculum Research N° Year Authors Setting Sample (students) duration area methodology Research instruments 8. 2020 King-­Sears and USA 44 Age range: High school 2 sessions Chemistry Two quasi-­ Pre-­and posttests Johnson (2020) No. with low SES: 21 experimental and social validity No. with AEN: 16 (Study 1: 10; studies questionnaire Study 2: 6) Gender: 24 male, 18 female Ethnicity: 5 White, 13 African American, 22 9Hispanic, 2 Multiracial 9. 2009 Marino (2009) USA 1153 Age range: Middle school: grades 4 weeks Science—­ Pre/posttest 1. Pre-­/posttest of scientific 6–­8 astrophysics Intervention concepts, processes No. with low SES: not specified Study (no and vocabulary (paper-­ No. with AEN: 126 with severe control group) and-­pencil 25-­item reading difficulties, 205 poor multiple-­choice) 2. Six readers open-­ended paper-­ Gender: 50% male, 50% female and-­pencil solutions WHAT NEXT FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING? Ethnicity: 91% White, 5% Asian, forms 3. Degrees of 3% Hispanic, 1% African Reading Power (DRP). American 4. Tool Use Log. 5. Observations 10. 2010 Marino USA 1153 Age range: 10–­14 4 weeks Science—­ Pre/posttest 1. Pre-­/posttest of scientific et al. (2010) No. with low SES: not specified astrophysics Intervention concepts, processes No. with AEN: ~ 11.5% (based on Study (no and vocabulary (paper-­ average across participants control group) and-­pencil 25-­item from the 3 schools) multiple-­choice) 2. Six Gender: 50% male, 50% female open-­ended paper-­ Ethnicity: 91% White, 5% Asian, and-­pencil solutions 3% Hispanic, 1% African forms 3. Degrees of American Reading Power (DRP). 4. Tool Use Log. 5. Observations 11. 2014 Marino USA 341 Age range: 10–­14 1 year Science—­ Mixed-­methods Paper-­and-­pencil pre-­/ et al. (2014) No. with low SES: 56% pathogens design. ABAB posttest, data collected    No. with AEN: 57 intervention through video game play, | Gender: 51% male, 49% female model student postintervention Ethnicity: 87% White focus group interviews 137  138 | A PPE N D I X (Continued)