Universal design for learning: an integrative literature review and integrated model for organizational training and development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning disabilities are common among employees, and they have important training and development-related implications for human resource development. However, there is limited knowledge in the field of human resource development to guide theory and practice in this area. In contrast, the field of education has made significant theoretical and practical strides to address the needs of learners with learning disabilities. Universal design for learning (UDL) is one of the most prominent developments in this area. Recognizing the need for more work on the inclusion of employees with learning disabilities and acknowledging the significant developments on this topic in the field of education, in this study, we conducted an integrative literature review of UDL research in education (N = 41). Using our findings from research conducted in the field of education, we proposed a new integrative model of UDL for organisational training and development. Our model identifies human resource development professionals, leaders, and supervisors, co-workers, and employees with learning disabilities as key actors in the UDL. Our model also details the types of inputs, activities, and products needed by organisations to achieve desirable short, medium, and long-term outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it