[30]

- 80 graduate students enrolled in an introductory research method course for four semesters (spring 2010:18, fall 2010:14, spring 2011:33, fall 2011:15)

- Introduction to research method

- F2F

Independent variables:

Research method course was taught using UDL strategies with the modification of the traditional research method course (emphasizing instructor’s action based on students’ feedback).

Dependent variables (Data collection: Quantitative method: Students’ paper-based survey): Student evaluation of learning and instruction at the end of the semester: Strategies used, instructional consistency with the principles of UDL, and students’ perceptions of the degree and ways of student engagement were surveyed.

- The instructors’ self-reported use of strategies is listed in the column of Elements of UDL Curriculum.

- The strategies students most frequently used for UDL recognition learning network: Reading summarizing handouts (M = 2.87, SD = 0.43), listening to an in-class lecture (M = 2.84, SD = 0.43), reading lecture notes (M = 2.37, SD = 0.83), reading summarizing graphic organizer (M = 2.33, SD = 0.84).

- The strategies students used least for UDL recognition learning network: Listening to text- to-speech software (M = 0.05, SD = 0.22), accessing online digital course materials (e.g., Blackboard, M = 0.61, SD = 1.04), and listening to recordings of course topics (M = 0.65, SD = 0.87).

- The strategies students most frequently used for UDL strategic learning network: Hands-on activities (M = 2.81, SD = 0.42), word processor or other (M = 2.76, SD = 0.68), and spell checker to check written work (M = 2.67, SD = 0.70). The strategies students least used for UDL strategic learning network: Speech-to-text (M = 0.04, SD = 0.191, inclusion of hyperlinks in assignments (M = 1.1, SD = 1.13), and inclusion of images or video in assignment (M = 1.3, SD = 1.1).

- The strategies students preferred: Feedback from the instructor (M = 2.65, SD = 0.51), choice of assignment topics (M = 2.35, SD = 0.73), and choice of assignment materials (M = 2.28, SD = 0.73).

- Categorized as effective.

- Multiple means of representation (recognition learning): Provision of online learning management system, posted class notes, PowerPoint slides, links to files in different formats, and reading materials.

- Multiple means of expression (strategic learning): Provision of timely feedback, hands-on sentence-completion activities, trading cards in front of which the researcher’s picture was displayed with facts about him/her on the back, students’ role-playing favorite researcher by sharing research with classmates, and poster session at the end of the semester.

- Multiple means of engagement (affective learning): Administration of multiple-intelligences inventory to learn about students, small-group discussion, provision of choice of topics in assignments, students developing blogs to post their thoughts on class topics, and resources from YouTube.

[31]

- 72 graduate and undergraduate students

- Two special education and two general education classes

- F2F

Intervention: One-hour in-class lecture to the experimental group on how to change lesson plans for students with mild and severe disabilities incorporating the ULD principles (experimental group design).

Dependent variables (Data collection: Quantitative method):

- Professor-developed scoring rubric with zero-to-two points used.

- Pre/posttest scores on students’ modified lesson plans.

- Information needed about UDL approaches for the teachers to design lesson plans for diverse learners.

- The effectiveness of UDL both for the special and general education teachers: Statistically significant scores on pre and posttests (F(1, 68) = 52.027, p < 0.001, η² = 0.433; representation component, F(1, 68) = 31.416, p < 0.001, η² = 0.316; expression component, F(1, 68) = 46.069, p < 0.001, η² = 0.404; and engagement component, F(1, 68) = 6.830, p = 0.011, η² = 0.091).

- Significant improvement indicated by results of pre- and posttests of the experimental group between pre- (M = 0.98) and posttest (M = 3.34) compared to those of control group’s pre- (M = 0.77) and posttest (M = 0.077).

- Categorized as effective.

Multiple means of expression: One-hour class lecture comprised of presentations on the UDL principles and implementations; elements unknown.

[32]

- 16 freshmen and sophomores with LD and ADHD

- STEM courses; calculus and chemistry for two semesters

- F2F

Independent variables:

PLTL implementation; peer mentor training focusing on UDI strategies and learning characteristics of students with LD/ADHD.

Dependent variables (Data collection: Quantitative method):

- Course GPA.

- Persistence: Enrollment in a STEM class for the next semester.

- Scores from Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI).

- Persistence in STEM course.

- Growth in using learning strategies measured by LASSI pre- and post-group tests: Significant improvement shown with 0.05% level in the group means of skill cluster (pretest; posttest = 42^nd; 66^th percentile with a probability value of 0.005), will cluster (pretest; posttest = 42^nd; 63^rd percentile with a probability value of 0.005) and self-regulation cluster (pretest; posttest = 29^th; 56^th percentile with a probability 0.001). For three clusters, single-tailed test was applied.

- Lower academic performance of PLTL SDs than non-PLTL SDs in the STEM courses: PLTL SDs might be the most at-risk subgroup on campus.

- Categorized as blended.

- In peer mentors’ training: Instructions on UDI principles and matching them with learning characteristics of students with LD and/or ADHD.

- Multiple means of representation (from peer mentors): Written templates, such as paper-based charts, lists, or diagrams, video templates, and color codes from red to blue on the whiteboard.

- Multiple means of engagement (in PLTL): Building the learning community with peers and mentors.