Happy New Year! 🎊🎆 My first morning of 2026 has been dedicated to digging deeper into research used to support the choice-based models growing in popularity in the US. 🤓 ☕️ 📖
Here we go.
King-Sears et al. (2023) is the meta-analysis CAST often cites when saying UDL “supports” student learning outcomes not necessarily that it improves them. That wording matters. 🧵🚩
1/7
Here we go.
King-Sears et al. (2023) is the meta-analysis CAST often cites when saying UDL “supports” student learning outcomes not necessarily that it improves them. That wording matters. 🧵🚩
1/7
https://x.com/SoLInTheWild/status/2006562770066473201
🚩 CAST summarizes King-Sears et al. (2023) by saying UDL shows “moderate-to-large positive effects” on student achievement. That sounds decisive but a closer look at the meta-analysis reveals several important red flags.
2/7
2/7
🚩 Replication red flag in King-Sears et al. (2023): only about half of the UDL studies described their instruction clearly enough for someone else to repeat it. If we can’t repeat it, we can’t be confident the results will hold up.
3/7
3/7
🚩 The authors also note that many studies didn’t clearly describe what teachers actually did. When instruction isn’t spelled out, it’s hard to know what’s being supported or how to replicate it.
4/7
4/7
🚩 The meta-analysis reports a positive average association, but results vary widely across studies. That pattern supports a cautious claim (“UDL may support learning”) not a strong one (“UDL reliably improves outcomes”).
5/7
5/7
🚩 Important detail from King-Sears et al. (2023) itself: many included studies used only 1–3 UDL guidelines, or didn’t clearly report UDL alignment at all. That’s a real limitation the authors acknowledge.
6/7
6/7
🚩 So when CAST highlights “moderate-to-large effects” on its site, it’s worth remembering what’s inside the study they cite. King-Sears et al. (2023) points to possible support but with real limitations that matter for practice.
7/7
7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
