The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 1

Challenges and Opportunities in Adhering to UDLPrinciples to Design Online Courses

Ahmed Lachheb, Victoria Abramenka-Lachheb, & Lesa Huber

In this article, we share the opportunities and the challenges in adhering to the Universal Design for Learning(UDL) framework to design higher education online courses. We highlight specific instructional design examplesto discuss the opportunities and challenges that we have encountered. We conclude by reflecting on UDL as adesign tool and ponder the following question: Do design tools guide or serve us? By reflecting on our combined40 years of design practice experience, we believe we offer valuable design knowledge of the UDL framework toscholars of design, educators, and practitioners.

IntroductionThe knowledge of design practitioners has always beenvaluable, benefiting design theory, education, andpractice (Cross, 2001; Nelson & Stolterman, 2014;Stolterman et al., 2009; Schön, 1983; 1987). Scholars relyon designers’ knowledge to understand design practice insitu, to introduce design tools grounded in practice, todevelop signature pedagogies for educating futuredesigners, and to suggest ways that can improve designpractice. Designers’ knowledge in the instructional designand technology (IDT) discipline is also valuable, ascontemporary IDT scholarship emphasized (Boling et al.,2017; Gray et al., 2015; Lachheb & Boling, 2018;Rowland, 1992; Sentz et al., 2019; Sentz & Stefaniak,2019; Smith & Boling, 2009; Tracey & Boling, 2014). Inthat spirit, we—the authors who work as instructional andlearning designers—share in this article the challengesand opportunities in adhering to the Universal Design forLearning (UDL) framework to design online courses ingraduate and undergraduate higher education settings.We do so by relying on our repertoires of designprecedents (Boling, 2021) and by reflecting on ourcombined 40 years of instructional and learning designexperience.

What UDL Means to Us?Broadly speaking, a design prescription is arecommendation for how to design something that isauthoritatively put forward by a group, organization,and/or entity in the design profession. From ourpractitioner perspective, the UDL framework fits thisdefinition of a design prescription. It is packed as a set of

design guidelines and grounded in the ‘authority’ ofscientific knowledge and principles, which mandates todesign instruction in a way that results in: (1) multipletypes and means of learning materials; (2) multipleopportunities for student engagement; and (3) multipleoptions for students to demonstrate mastery of learning.Further, adhering to the UDL framework allows designersto comply with accessibility standards as mandated andauthoritatively put forward by Section 508 of theRehabilitation Act and to design successful learningexperiences. The UDL framework—including its sets ofdesign guidelines—could also be an instructional designtheory that fits the learner-centered paradigm ofinstructional design theories and models (Reigeluth et al.,2017). In this sense, UDL is a theoretical design tool(Lachheb & Boling, 2018; Yanchar et al., 2010).

Throughout our design education and professionaltraining, we have been introduced to UDL throughfoundational literature (e.g., CAST: Center for AppliedSpecial Technology, 2018; Moore, 2007; Spector et al.,2014). We recognize that UDL has roots in the idea ofbarrier-free design that emerged in the 1950s across theworld (Moore & Ellsworth, 2014). Such roots evolvedlater in the 1990s when Ron Mace, a Professor of NorthCarolina State University, introduced Universal Design toadvocate for designing physical buildings andenvironments to accommodate all users, particularlythose with physical limitations and disabilities. The mostcomprehensive definition of UDL that we recognize is byMoore (2007):

Using a set of principles for design, it[UDL] takes diversity of the learnerpopulation into account from the start and

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 2

builds features into the learning materials,environment, and system that allow abroad set of learners to access thelearning (both the content and theinstructional strategies) and accomplishlearning goals. (paragraph 4)

The Center for Applied Special Technology(CAST)—where the UDL framework originated—definesUDL as a “design approach to curriculum, that minimizesbarriers, and maximizes learning for all learners” (CAST,2010). When we consider these definitions, we can frameUDL as a design framework that advocates for multiplemeans of engagement, representation, and action andexpression. This framework is based on the notion thatthere are separate networks in the brain (recognition,strategic, and affective) and ponders how these networksshould be thought of when designing instruction. A UDL-guided design expects a great variability among students’needs, preferences, and capacities. Thus, it refutes theidea of one “typical” student persona.

Design Opportunities with UDLOne of the core values that we cherish is that the learningexperiences and instructions that we design should beinclusive and responsive to students’ diverse needs. Afterall, we all remember that one class or learning experiencewhere we felt unnoticed, underappreciated, or neglected.We do not wish for any student to experience the samewhen they interact with what we design. The UDLframework, in this sense, provides our design work withopportunities to put our core design value into practice,so no student we design for is left behind. Being informedwith UDL, we designed—and continue to design—onlinecourses that include multiple types and means of learningmaterials that can speak to the diversity of students’preferences, multiple opportunities for students’engagement, and assessments that include multipleoptions for students to demonstrate their mastery oflearning. Throughout the next sections, we highlightrelevant examples to the nine UDL guidelines, ashighlighted by CAST (2018). The following table (Table 1)is a graphic organizer of the UDL guidelines andcheckpoints, and the corresponding examples and figuresreferenced in the next sections.

Table 1

Graphic Organizer of the UDL Guidelines and theCorresponding Figures

UDL Guideline/# Guideline & Checkpoint CorrespondingFigure

#1: Perception Interact with flexible contentthat doesn’t depend on a singlesense like sight, hearing,movement, or touch.●CHECKPOINT 1.1: Offer ways ofcustomizing the display ofinformation

Figure 4

●CHECKPOINT 1.2: Offeralternatives for auditoryinformation

Figure 1

● CHECKPOINT 1.3: Offeralternatives for visual information

Figure 2

#2: Language &Symbols

Communicate through languagesthat create a sharedunderstanding.● CHECKPOINT 2.5: Illustratethrough multiple media

Figure 2

#3:Comprehension

Construct meaning and generatenew understandings.● CHECKPOINT 3.1: Activate orsupply background knowledge

Figures 5a & 5b

● CHECKPOINT 3.2: Highlightpatterns, critical features, bigideas, and relationships

Figures 6a, 6b &6c

● CHECKPOINT 3.3: Guideinformation processing andvisualization

Figures 3a & 3b

#4: PhysicalAction

Interact with accessible materialsand tools.● CHECKPOINT 4.1: Vary themethods for response andnavigation

Figures 7a & 7b

● CHECKPOINT 4.2: Optimizeaccess to tools and assistivetechnologies

Figure 8

#5: Expression &Communication

Compose and share ideas usingtools that help attain learninggoals● CHECKPOINT 5.1: Use multiplemedia for communication

Figure 9

#6: ExecutiveFunctions

Develop and act on plans to makethe most out of learning.● CHECKPOINT 6.1: Guideappropriate goal-setting

Figure 11

● CHECKPOINT 6.3: Facilitatemanaging information andresources

Figures 10a & 10b

#7: RecruitingInterest

Spark excitement and curiosity forlearning.● CHECKPOINT 7.2: Optimizerelevance, value, and authenticity

Figures 12a & 12b

#8: SustainingEffort &Persistence

Tackle challenges with focus anddetermination.

●CHECKPOINT 8.3: Fostercollaboration and community

Figure 13

#9: SelfRegulation

Harness the power of emotionsand motivation in learning.● CHECKPOINT 9.1: Promoteexpectations and beliefs thatoptimize motivation

Figure 14

● CHECKPOINT 9.3: Develop self-assessment and reflection

Figure 15

Multiple Types and Means of LearningMaterials

One of the most important points that we discuss in our

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 3

initial design meetings is the design and development oflearning materials. Often, faculty come to us with apredetermined decision about what specific kind oflearning material they wish to present to their students(e.g., a paid textbook, a collection of journal articles,and/or only video lectures, etc.). Through negotiation andby presenting to them the idea that learning materialvariability increases the quality of their course design, weeventually design and develop multiple types and meansof learning materials for the online courses we designed.For example, we search for open educational resources(OERs) and advocate for their use instead of (or inaddition to) using a textbook (Figure 1). We rely on videosavailable online and on the institution’s repository ofvideo archives to present rich audiovisual content forstudents (Figure 2).

Figure 1

Weekly Readings

Authors Note: In addition to the video lecture and thecourse textbook, weekly readings are drawn from OERs(2-5 bulleted points) (UDL guideline/checkpoint 1.2: offeralternatives for auditory information).

Figure 2

Open Educational Resources Used and Provided

Authors Note: Videos from HBO YouTube channel and anews articles are provided to students as “lecturesupplements” (UDL guideline/checkpoint 1.3: offeralternatives for visual information; UDLguideline/checkpoint 2.5: illustrate through multiplemedia).

Additionally, when we produce a video lecture, we alwaysprovide the students with a copy of the slides as a

‘presentation handout,’ giving them the freedom to watchthe lectures, read the slides, or do both (Figure 3a andFigure 3b). Additionally, students are provided withoptions regarding how they can interact with the learningmaterials by choosing to focus on the slides or the videofeed of their instructor (Figure 4).

Figure 3a

Slides are Attached Under the Video Lecture

Authors Note: Slides used in the lecture are available fordownload in a PDF format (UDL guideline/checkpoint 3.3:guide information processing and visualization).

Figure 3b

Alternative Summary of the Video Lecture is Provided

Authors Note: Slides used in the lecture and analternative summary of the video lecture are available fordownload in a PDF format (UDL guideline/checkpoint 3.3:guide information processing and visualization).

Figure 4

Option to Customize the How to View the Video Lecture

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 4

Authors note: Students are given the option to customizethe way they can view the video lecture (UDLguideline/checkpoint 1.1: offer ways of customizing thedisplay of information).

In addition, given that most courses we design aregraduate-level and tailored to specific degree programs,we design activities and materials to activate or supplybackground knowledge needed for the course (‘GettingStarted’ or ‘Pre-Requisite Knowledge’ module, Figure 5aand Figure 5b). In the design of learning materials, wework with faculty to highlight the patterns, criticalfeatures, big ideas, and their relationships throughcreating a detailed course syllabus (Figure 6a), customcourse structure and navigation (Figure 6b), and moduleoverviews (Figure 6c).

Figure 5a

Getting Started Module for Students to Complete

Authors Note: The ‘Getting Started’ module is forstudents to complete before starting the course (UDLguideline/checkpoint 3.1: activate or supply backgroundknowledge).

Figure 5b

‘Civics Refresher’ Module for Students to Complete

Authors Note: The ‘Civics Refresher’ Module is forstudents to complete before starting the course (UDLguideline/checkpoint 3.1: activate or supply backgroundknowledge).

Figure 6a

Course Syllabus

Authors Notes: The course syllabus shows the courseschedule pattern for each week (UDLguideline/checkpoint 3.2: highlight patterns, criticalfeatures, big ideas, and relationships).

Figure 6b

Course Homepage

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 5

Authors Note: The course homepage shows a customcourse structure/ navigation (UDL guideline/checkpoint3.2: highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, andrelationships).

Figure 6c

Timeline for Module Completion

Authors Note: In an online graduate course module, asuggested timeline for module completion for students islisted (UDL guideline/checkpoint 3.2: highlight patterns,critical features, big ideas, and relationships).

Multiple Means of Action and Expression

Being informed with the UDL framework helped usdesign multiple means for action, expression, andcommunication from students. For example, whendesigning a course site, we ensure that students caneasily access the necessary resources and do not haveunnecessary items in the navigation menu (Figure 7a).Additionally, we ensure that the course home pagesinclude key information about the course, faculty contactinformation, and course resources. We do this so thatstudents have different methods for navigation (Figure7b). Each course we design has a separate module called‘Getting Started’ that includes sections about accessibilityand information on where on-campus students canreceive help (Figure 8).

Figure 7a

Course Navigation Menu

Authors Note: A screenshot from an online graduate

course that shows a customized navigation menu (UDLguideline/checkpoint 4.1: vary the methods for responseand navigation).

Figure 7b

Graduate Course Homepage

Authors Note: Various methods of course navigation in acourse homepage (UDL guideline/checkpoint 4.1: vary themethods for response and navigation).

Figure 8

Accessibility and Adaptability Technology Resources

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 6

Authors Note: The page includes resources toaccessibility and adaptability technology resources (UDLguideline/checkpoint 4.2: optimize access to tools andassistive technologies).

When we design courses, we ensure that faculty havedifferent options to communicate with their students,specifically during emergencies. Thus, as informed by theUDL guidelines on expression and communication, wework with faculty to consider multiple communicationmeans that students can use to communicate with them.For instance, students can email their faculty, send amessage through the learning management system, call afaculty office number, or meet via Zoom. These means areusually listed on the course homepage and the syllabus’first page (Figure 9).

Figure 9

Faculty Contact Information Section

Authors Note: in the course homepage, the facultycontact information is listed (UDL guideline/checkpoint5.1: use multiple media for communication).

Further, we believe that it is critical that instructionaldesigners and faculty consider and integrate various toolsaligned with students’ learning needs and can fosterstudents’ learning. For instance, we work with faculty toadopt multiple technologies (e.g., Quick Check formativeassessment tools, assignments tools, and two differentdiscussion tools; one embedded within the learningmanagement system and the other as an external tool).We see firsthand how these tools have fostered learning,

community building, and engagement.

In addition, being informed of the UDL framework hashelped us design and integrate different types ofscaffolds. Such scaffolds have been necessary to guidestudents through authentic projects, which has requiredthem to apply their knowledge and skills in real-lifesettings. For instance, in an online course in whichstudents are assigned to conduct their own populationneeds analysis, they are offered to complete this projectin chunks. That is, students’ major project is chunked intoseveral deliverables. The rationale behind this is toengage students in a progression of tasks and providestudents with opportunities to track their progress withtimely faculty feedback.

Informed with the UDL executive functions guidelines, weprovide students with checkpoints and checklists to helpthem track their learning progress. For instance, eachcourse has an overview page of each module that listslearning objectives, learning materials, and assignments.The rationale for including those overview pages is tohelp students see the purpose behind each learningactivity and assignment and to mentally organize thepresented material into a coherent structure (Figure10a).

Figure 10a

A Screenshot from an Online Undergraduate Course thatShows a Section of a Week Overview Page Home Page(UDL Guideline/Checkpoint 6.3: Facilitate managinginformation and resources)

Authors Note: The module includes an overview chart(UDL guideline/checkpoint 6.3: facilitate managinginformation and resources).

Additionally, being informed by the guidelines offacilitating the management of information and

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 7

resources, the online courses we design typically includedetailed descriptions of all course assignments. We alsoprovide templates that students can use to get started ontheir thought process and organize their ideas tocomplete their assignments (Figure 10b). Students canalso find a brief description of learning materials, such asreadings and to-do lists. At the end of each module,students can find a checklist for each week to help themtrack their progress (Figure 11).

Figure 10b

Assignment Description

Authors Note: A page dedicated to show the assignmentdescription (UDL guideline/checkpoint 6.3: facilitatemanaging information and resources).

Figure 11

End-of-Module Checklist

Authors Note: A screenshot from an online undergraduatecourse that shows an end-of-module checklist (UDLguideline/checkpoint 6.1: guide appropriate goal setting).

Multiple Opportunities for StudentEngagement

We assert that high student engagement with course

materials, activities, faculty, and other students is key fora successful learning experience and, thus, a successfulcourse design. We believe in active learning approaches,which contribute to students taking ownership of theirown learning. To this end, as instructional designers, weensure that the learning materials, activities, andlearning interactions are designed for high studentengagement. Informed with UDL guidelines ofengagement (guidelines 7-9), we design various activitiesto ensure high student engagement. Graduate coursesthat we design are often competency-based courses. Suchcompetencies are authentic to the students’ futureprofessional practice (e.g., public health practitioner). Tooptimize relevance, value, and authenticity of the course,we developed video testimonials from former students(Figure 12a) to address the ‘So what?’ question oflearning activities (Figure 12b).

Figure 12a

Video Testimonials from Program Alumni

Author Note: The video testimonials from programalumni highlights the value of the learning experiencesthe students are about to start (UDL guideline/checkpoint7.2: optimize relevance, value, and authenticity).

Figure 12b

Rationale for Assignment

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 8

Authors Note: The page contains a rationale for theassignment and why it is important (UDLguideline/checkpoint 7.2: optimize relevance, value, andauthenticity).

We also rely on group projects and discussions, as well asprojects where students work with community groups, tonot only foster collaboration and a sense of communitybut also to increase the authenticity of the learningexperiences (Figure 13). Last and not least, to increaseself-regulation and to optimize individual choice andautonomy for students, we designed discussion activitiesin an open-ended way (Figure 14), and we providedmultiple formative and informal assessment opportunitiesfor students to check their own understanding of thecourse materials (Figure 15).

Figure 13A

Screenshot from an Online Graduate Course GroupAssignment Where Students Are Asked to Work with anOrganization from the Community (UDLGuideline/Checkpoint 8.3: Foster Collaboration andCommunity)

Authors Note: A group assignment where students areasked to work with an organization from the community(UDL guideline/checkpoint 8.3: foster collaboration andcommunity).

Figure 14

Course Discussion

Authors Note: In an online graduate course discussion,students are free to choose between two formats ofintroduction posts—a video or a written post (UDLguideline/checkpoint 9.1: promote expectations andbeliefs that optimize motivation).

Figure 15

Formative/Ungraded Quiz

Authors Note: A formative/ungraded quiz is included inonline graduate class (UDL guideline/checkpoint 9.3:develop self-assessment and reflection).

Challenges of Adhering to the UDLFramework: Obstacles &OpportunitiesThe opportunities that the UDL framework provides forour design work also come with challenges. Throughoutthe next sections, we highlight a few challenges that weencountered, framed as obstacles in adhering to the UDLframework, and we comment on how we addressed eachobstacle. These obstacles, despite their immensecomplexity, challenge our design practice but do notmake us less committed to the core values and principlesof the UDL framework.

Interpretation of the UDL Guidelines:Obstacle & Opportunity

While each UDL guideline’s explanation is provided onthe CAST website, these explanations are rather broad,which opens room for ambiguous interpretation—anobstacle that we faced in adhering to the UDL framework.We have witnessed how each designer in our team caninterpret these guidelines differently, based on their tacitdesign knowledge and their core design judgments(Boling et al., 2017). As a result, the variety among the

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 9

UDL framework’s interpretations led to inconsistentpractices and design structures. For example, we hadfeedback from faculty about how their experiences indesigning courses varied as they heard conflicting andinconsistent design ideas and suggestions. It waschallenging for us to make sure the framework wasapplied with the same purpose for which it was designed.

To overcome this obstacle, we dedicated multiple designmeetings and conducted double peer-reviews of coursedesign to calibrate our interpretations of UDL guidelines.For that reason, we believe that instructional designersshould have a clear understanding of the UDL guidelines,engage in constant reflection on their design practice(Lachheb & Boling, 2021) with UDL guidelines, andoperate using the same terms to design appropriateinteractions conducive to learning.

Time Commitment: Obstacle & Opportunity

The time commitment that we faced in adhering to theUDL framework was another obstacle. Following the UDLframework can help ensure that courses are accessibleand responsive to diverse student learning needs.However, it requires significant time to follow UDLguidelines and apply its principles. We all want to employa thoughtful, slow, and rigorous process for coursedesign. Such a process requires enough time for ideation,iteration, high-quality media production, and formativeassessments of our design work. However, with thereality of instructional design work in highereducation—specifically, when all modes of instructionsneed to shift to an emergency mode of remoteinstruction—we are forced to pick efficiency overeffectiveness and appeal (Honebein & Honebein, 2015)and to design a minimally viable product (MVP) in whichUDL principles were minimally applied.

To overcome this obstacle, we agreed as a design team onwhat we call ‘negotiable’ and ‘non-negotiable’ designpractices. We agreed that designing accessible and ADAcompliant course is a non-negotiable design practice;every course we design must be accessible and ADAcompliant. For example, we collaborated with on-campusunits that provided us with tools to generate videocaptions, thus, taking this workload away from facultyand designers. As for the UDL framework, it wasnegotiable to some extent; time and resource allocationsare the main two factors. Additionally, to save time, weinclude many UDL-informed design ideas in our designtemplates, as well as design instructional materials thatare reusable.

Resistance to Follow the Guidelines andDesign Failures: Obstacle & Opportunity

While working with different faculty on course design, we

noticed certain resistance to following UDL guidelines—athird obstacle we faced in adhering to the UDLframework. The main reason for this resistance is thateach faculty approached their course design project withtheir own teaching philosophy and ideas on teaching.After all, most of the faculty we have worked with areexcellent teachers with impressive experience. Forexample, one faculty pushed back against the idea ofmultiple means for action and expression when wesuggested giving students multiple options to submittheir assignment of an ‘elevator pitch.’ They cited alegitimate concern—it will result in an unlevel playingfield for students, and thus, it could be an inequitable anda non-inclusive practice. Another faculty was willing toimplement the ideas we suggested that are informed withUDL. Still, they insisted on having an efficient process ofgrading students’ artifacts and not worrying abouttechnical issues they may encounter with the students’multiple formats of deliverables.

Additionally, in a few design projects, we haveexperienced design failure partially due to our advocacyfor UDL. For example, one design project had to becompleted in a short period, and we lacked the neededresources to empower the course design with UDLguidelines. The design project eventually got scrapped.This project could have been successful if we did not faceobstacles in collaborating with the faculty, who, in theirdefense, could not afford to dedicate the time to thecourse design project that we wanted. Adhering to UDLin this project caused design constraints, thus introducingmodes of design failure. In general, most faculty we workwith find the UDL framework enriching and good, but itcould make the course design experience more intensiveand time-consuming. As we understand, time is a luxuryfor some of our faculty who do not get fairly compensatedfor their design efforts and the multiple tasks they haveto complete; thus, they deserve our utmost empathy andcompassion.

To overcome this obstacle, we had to rely on ourrepertoires of design precedents (Boling, 2021). Weshowcase to faculty good examples from their peers toincrease their motivation and interest in adopting UDL-informed practices. We also cite personal experienceswith teaching and learning to bring more credibility toour UDL-informed design suggestions. We treat eachfaculty and their course design project as a uniquesituation in which we address their concerns throughempathy and respect.

ConclusionThe challenges we faced adhering to the UDL frameworkdo not make us less committed to designing equitable andinclusive learning experiences. After all, design work isby nature always constrained, challenging, and

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 10

requires—sometimes difficult—tradeoffs. As wecommented throughout the paper, we appreciate the corevalues of UDL, and we continue to embrace them. Wethink that we are able to strike a happy balance betweenthe opportunities we have and the challenges weencounter in adhering to UDL; thus, we do not have tosacrifice efficiency over effectiveness and appeal(Honebein & Honebein, 2015).

We firmly believe in the following idea: design tools, suchas UDL, serve us and do not guide us. UDL, like any othertheoretical design prescriptions, must be put in theservice of designers’ judgments to design rich, inclusive,and responsive learning experiences. We believe thatdesigners should adopt a designerly approach to designtools’ selection and use (Lachheb & Boling, 2018;Stolterman et al., 2009). This approach means that designtools are serving what the designer needs and notscaffold or direct their design in a predetermined way.This approach also mandates designers to grow a goodability to evoke strong instrumental judgments that helpthem select what design tools to use, how, when, and why(Lachheb & Boling, 2018; Lachheb & Boling, 2021).

Eventually, designers in our discipline can face thechallenges—such as we listed earlier with UDL—bycoming up with design tools for themselves, informed bytheir tacit knowledge and the reality of their designpractice. Relying solely on scholarly tools as offered intraditional IDT literature will not get instructionaldesigners far enough in facing their intricate designproblems and wicked practice. With a designerlyapproach to design tools, we can “[…] contribute toadvancement in the field robustly and affect positively thetypes of instructional design problems we can take on andthe ability of our designers to flex with the nature ofthose problems” (Lachheb & Boling, 2018, p. 49).

ReferencesBoling, E. (2021). The nature and use of precedent in

designing. In J. K. McDonald & R. E.West (Eds.), Design for learning: Principles,processes, and praxis. EdTech Books.https://edtechbooks.org/-Ercd

Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I. M., Guo, M., Gyabak, K.,Khlaif, Z., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., Alsaif, M.,Lachheb, A., Bae, H., Ergulec, F., Zhu, M.,Basdogan, M., Buggs, C., Sari., R., Techawitthayachinda, R. I. (2017). Core judgments ofinstructional designers in practice. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 30(3),199–219. https://edtechbooks.org/-KAqE

Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2015). Designerly tools,sketching, and instructional designers and the

guarantors of design. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton,& M. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learningexperience: Creating the future of educationaltechnology (pp. 109‐126). Springer.https://edtechbooks.org/-SdNc

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2.http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Center for Applied Special Technology. [CAST]. (2010,January 6). UDL At A Glance [Video].YouTube. https://youtu.be/bDvKnY0g6e4

Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Designdiscipline versus design science. DesignIssues, 17(3), 49-55. https://edtechbooks.org/-BwG

Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral‐Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan,V., Altuwaijri, A. A., Gyabak, K., Hilligoss, M.,Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K. & Boling, E. (2015).Judgment and instructional design: How IDpractitioners work in practice. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 28(3), 25-49.https://edtechbooks.org/-jCqf

Honebein, P. C., & Honebein, C. H. (2015). Effectiveness,efficiency, and appeal: Pick any two? The influence oflearning domains and learning outcomes on designerjudgments of useful instructionalmethods. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 63(6), 937-955.https://edtechbooks.org/-bwhu

Lachheb, A. & Boling, E. (2021). The role of designjudgment and reflection in instructional design. In J.K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.), Design forlearning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTechBooks. https://edtechbooks.org/-zPFg

Lachheb, A., & Boling, E. (2018). Design tools in practice:Instructional designers report which tools they useand why. Journal of Computing in HigherEducation, 30(1), 34-54.https://edtechbooks.org/-HDB

Moore, S. L., & Ellsworth, J. B. (2014). Ethics ofeducational technology. In Spector, J., M., Merrill, D.,M, Elen, J. & Bishop, M., J. (Eds), Handbook ofresearch on educational communications andtechnology (pp. 113-127). Springer.

Moore, S. L. (2007). Universal design for learning: Onlinetutorial. Hyperformer. https://edtechbooks.org/-kvhS

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way:Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nded.). The MIT Press.

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 11

Reigeluth, C. M., Beatty, B. J., & Myers, R. D. (Eds.).(2017). Instructional-design theories and models,Volume IV: The learner-centered paradigm ofeducation. Routledge.

Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designersactually do? An initial investigation of expertpractice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2),65-86. https://edtechbooks.org/-rwvV

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: Howprofessionals think in action. Temple-Smith.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner:Toward a new design for teaching and learning in theprofessions. John Wiley & Sons.

Sentz, J., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Eckhoff, A. (2019).How do instructional designers manage learners’cognitive load? An examination of awareness andapplication of strategies. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 67(1), 199-245.https://edtechbooks.org/-hyj

Sentz, J., & Stefaniak, J. (2019). Instructional heuristicsfor the use of worked examples to manageinstructional designers’ cognitive load while problem-solving. TechTrends, 63(2), 209-225.

https://edtechbooks.org/-Tvzo

Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make ofdesign? Design as a concept in educationaltechnology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3-17.

Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J.(Eds.). (2014). Handbook of research on educationalcommunications and technology. Springer.

Stolterman, E., McAtee, J., Royer, D., & Thandapani, S.(2009). Designerly tools.https://edtechbooks.org/-BqAK

Tracey, M. W., & Boling, E. (2014). Preparinginstructional designers: Traditional and emergingperspectives. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbookof research on educational communications andtechnology (pp. 653–660). Springer.https://edtechbooks.org/-TeV

Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., &Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? Aqualitative investigation of conceptual tool use ininstructional design. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 58(1), 39-60.https://edtechbooks.org/-ApYi

The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1) 12

Lachheb, A., Abramenka-Lachheb, V., & Huber, L. (2021). Challenges and Opportunities in Adhering toUDL Principles to Design Online Courses. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1).https://dx.doi.org/10.51869/101alvallh

CC BY: This work is released under a CC BY license, which means that youare free to do with it as you please as long as you properly attribute it.