UDL: Universal Design for Learning – Designing Diversity from the Start

When you enter a classroom, you see students moving toward the same goal but choosing different paths. Some read quickly, others learn by listening, and some clarify their thinking when they pick up a pen. The purpose is to ensure equal access to learning for all students. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) takes this very picture as its starting point. At the core of the framework lies this idea: if the learning environment is built flexibly from the outset to reduce barriers, more students will participate and more equitable and consistent outcomes will be achieved.

UDL recommends constructing goal-related options across three domains: engagement, representation, and action/expression. Simply increasing the number of options is not sufficient; what matters is that the options serve as meaningful bridges to the goal. When objectives, evidence, and criteria speak the same language, UDL permeates everyday classroom decisions. This makes the teacher’s work easier and broadens the student’s pathway (CAST, 2024).

The engagement domain asks us to consider the conditions that spark and sustain curiosity. The representation domain focuses on making content comprehensible through different modalities. The action and expression domain enables learners to demonstrate their knowledge in multiple forms. These three domains complement one another.

For example, if the objective is to establish cause-and-effect relationships, a student may reach this goal not only through a long essay but also with a flowchart or a short oral explanation. The critical distinction here is this: UDL is not about providing everything for everyone. The goal remains fixed, but the pathways diversify. The current version, UDL Guidelines 3.0, reminds us that even seemingly neutral designs may create invisible barriers for some students. It therefore places barrier analysis at the very beginning of the design process. In this way, inclusivity is strengthened not through individual accommodations but through systematic planning (CAST, 2024).

Research offers cautious optimism. Open-access reviews show that UDL-based practices positively affect achievement and engagement, but effect sizes vary depending on context and implementation quality. Particularly significant are findings that objectives are made visible in student-friendly language, options are directly tied to the objective, and assessment tools are consistent with design—all of which strengthen results. In one experimental study, a UDL-based science notebook was tested with a large sample over two years. No significant group-level advantage in motivation or achievement was found. This demonstrates that the framework alone is not a “magic solution”; effectiveness also depends on the quality of content and delivery. In short, UDL is a disciplined design approach: if the framework is strong but the activities are weak, results remain limited. When the framework aligns with content, however, gains emerge more consistently (Almeqdad et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2021).

In a crowded science class, the objective was first translated into student-friendly language. Instead of saying “We are learning separation methods for mixtures,” the teacher asked, “If you had to separate starch from water in the kitchen, how would you do it?” Three entry points were then opened: a short everyday video, distinguishing between two visuals, and extracting keywords from a simplified text. Students chose their preferred pathway and wrote three sentences of initial impressions. By sharing success criteria in advance, everyone’s direction became clear. Technology was not required; what mattered was the transparency of the link between goals and options. Engagement, representation, and expression thus intersected in the same lesson, and classroom noise became learning noise.

In a multi-class trial in North America, students expressed their learning through a short essay, a visual flow, or a two-minute oral presentation. Success criteria were shared at the start, and each pathway pointed to the same goal. For students with language barriers or writing anxiety, this structure significantly increased participation. Teachers gave feedback not through a single format but based on common rubric criteria. The most notable outcome was that students recognized their own strengths. The persistence of participation in subsequent weeks underscored the effect of this awareness. The interpretation is clear: choice alone is not effective; what matters is the design of options aligned with criteria.

The distinction between UDL and differentiation becomes evident here. Differentiation often refers to individual adjustments made during instruction. UDL, on the other hand, embeds barrier analysis into the planning phase. Factors such as reading speed, vocabulary, attention span, motor skills, accessibility, and cultural representation are considered in advance, and goal-related options are designed for each.

Therefore, UDL is not only for students with special needs; it is for the entire classroom. Technology can be supportive but is not required. Well-written objectives, simplified texts, visual note-taking, or low-cost station activities embody the same principle.

When these practices come together, two things become visible in the school climate: the student’s willingness to participate and the teacher’s confidence in making evidence-based decisions.

• Almeqdad, Q. I., Alodat, A. M., Alquraan, M. F., Mohaidat, M. A., & Al-Makhzoomy, A. K. (2023). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10, 2218191. Full text

• Rusconi, L., Anelli, F., Arrigoni, F., & Antonietti, A. (2023). Effects of a Universal Design for Learning training course on teachers’ competencies. Education Sciences, 13(5), 466. Full text

• Yu, J., Wei, X., Hall, T. E., Oehlkers, A., Ferguson, K., Robinson, K. H., & Blackorby, J. (2021). Findings from a two-year effectiveness trial of the Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning environment. Frontiers in Education, 6, 719672. Full text

References

• Almeqdad, Q. I., Alodat, A. M., Alquraan, M. F., Mohaidat, M. A., & Al-Makhzoomy, A. K. (2023). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10, 2218191.

• CAST. (2024). UDL Guidelines 3.0. CAST. Retrieved from https://udlguidelines.cast.org

• Rusconi, L., Anelli, F., Arrigoni, F., & Antonietti, A. (2023). Effects of a Universal Design for Learning training course on teachers’ competencies. Education Sciences, 13(5), 466.

• Yu, J., Wei, X., Hall, T. E., Oehlkers, A., Ferguson, K., Robinson, K. H., & Blackorby, J. (2021). Findings from a two-year effectiveness trial of the Science Notebook in a Universal Design for Learning environment. Frontiers in Education, 6, 719672.