Universal Design for Learning and Accessible Technologies in School Education: A Scoping Review of Access, Participation, Learning, and Equity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64747/64psat42Keywords:
Universal Design for Learning, accessible technologies, inclusive education, student participation, digital accessibility, educational equityAbstract
Introduction: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) proposes anticipating learner variability and reducing barriers through multiple options for engagement, representation, and action. Yet UDL, digital accessibility, assistive technology, and individualized accommodations are often treated as equivalents. Objective: To map evidence published through May 30, 2026, on UDL and accessible technologies in school education, focusing on components, technological functions, access, participation, learning, implementation, and equity. Methods: A JBI-oriented scoping review was reported using PRISMA-ScR. Ten historical Crossref searches retrieved 600 records; 540 were unique and 152 passed a broad thematic filter. Forty-five reports were assessed and 20 sources were included after complementary tracking through ERIC, DOI records, publisher pages, and institutional sources. Results: Seventeen sources provided direct school or school-methodological evidence, and three were institutional frameworks. The corpus comprised five systematic reviews, two meta-analyses or quantitative syntheses, one scoping review, three measurement or implementation studies, six school interventions or cases, and three institutional sources. Technology supported access, representation, production, communication, collaboration, and feedback, but did not constitute a UDL intervention by itself. Evidence was favorable for access and achievement in several settings, although heterogeneity, variable fidelity, and the predominance of perception measures constrained uniform inference. Teacher development, planning time, co-design, user testing, infrastructure, and the preservation of individualized accommodations shaped equity. Conclusions: Responsible implementation separates UDL, technical conformance, assistive technology, reasonable accommodations, and personalization; links every option to a goal and barrier; and evaluates opportunity, experience, learning, fidelity, and distribution of benefit. This review informs a future Ecuadorian pilot but cannot establish local effectiveness or replace prospective implementation.
References
Basham, J. D., Gardner, J. E., & Smith, S. J. (2020). Measuring the implementation of UDL in classrooms and schools: Initial field test results. Remedial and Special Education, 41(4), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520908015
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(1), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13328
Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074
CAST. (2024). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Craig, S. L., Smith, S. J., & Frey, B. B. (2024). Universal design for learning: Connecting teacher implementation to student outcomes. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(11), 2458–2474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2113459
Ewe, L. P., & Galvin, T. (2023). Universal Design for Learning across formal school structures in Europe: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(9), 867. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090867
Katz, J. (2015). Implementing the Three Block Model of Universal Design for Learning: Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy, stress, and job satisfaction in inclusive classrooms K–12. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.881569
Kennedy, J., Missiuna, C., Pollock, N., Wu, S., Yost, J., & Campbell, W. (2018). A scoping review to explore how universal design for learning is described and implemented by rehabilitation health professionals in school settings. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44(5), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12576
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713507262
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
Lee, H. J., Kim, N.-J., & Kim, Y.-S. (2019). The educational effects of UDL-based middle school science classes: Successful implementation of teacher and participation of students. Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice, 20(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.19049/JSPED.2019.20.1.03
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., Black, A. C., Hayes, M. T., & Beecher, C. C. (2010). An analysis of factors that affect struggling readers’ achievement during a technology-enhanced STEM astronomy curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643410025003
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
Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355862497/10.+Scoping+reviews
Rao, K. (2015). Universal Design for Learning and multimedia technology: Supporting culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 24(2), 121–137. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1061289
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513518980
Rao, K., Ok, M. W., Smith, S. J., Evmenova, A. S., & Edyburn, D. (2020). Validation of the UDL reporting criteria with extant UDL research. Remedial and Special Education, 41(4), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519847755
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? https://gem-report-2023.unesco.org/
World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
Zhang, L., Carter, R. A., Greene, J. A., & Bernacki, M. L. (2024). Unraveling challenges with the implementation of Universal Design for Learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2026-06-30 (2)
- 2026-06-30 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Carlos Xavier Landi (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant Sapiens Global the right of first publication. The article is distributed under CC BY 4.0, except where third-party material is identified under different terms.
