Universal Design for Learning

Introduction

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) addresses the variability found in students’ learning (Roa & Meo, 2016). Variability exists in most classrooms as students possess diverse abilities, cultural backgrounds, experiences, and languages (Meyer et al., 2014). Some students are visual learners, while others are auditory learners. Given these differences, all students benefit from a multimodality approach to learning. UDL provides Principles and Guidelines for developing curricula to minimize barriers to learning for students with or without disorders. Barriers consist of factors that may restrain or obstruct students’ progress in learning. The UDL framework is designed to allow all students to become expert learners (Hartmann, 2015).

UDL is a learning framework derived from architecture, neurodiversity, and learning sciences. Architectural universal design was developed to minimize barriers in buildings by providing physical accessibility through the use of both steps and ramps (Scott et al., 2010). The neurodiversity perspective accounts for both strengths and weaknesses within the human brain that play a role in special and general education (Armstrong, 2015; CAST, 2018b), marking the differences in how students think and learn.

Learning science has shown that learning processes differ according to students’ abilities and backgrounds, including differences in culture, language, preferences, and experiences (Kubat, 2018). Research shows that brain activity patterns differ across individuals, even when they are performing exactly the same task (Petrea, 2019). Thus, educators must use varying teaching methods to engage each student’s particular strength.

Universal Design for Learning: Three Main Principles

UDL offers three Principles that provide a framework for educators to develop curricula. These Principles consist of Multiple Means of Representation, Multiple Means of Action and Expression, and Multiple Means of Engagement. These core Principles emerged from cognitive research on the neurological basis of learning styles (Meyer et al., 2014). Multiple Means of Representation takes into account the variable ways that information may be understood and grasped by students. Because students may grasp information through visual, auditory, and tactile means, multiple approaches can benefit all students’ learning. Instructors should provide multiple, flexible methods to support learning by providing multiple examples and modifying the complexity of materials. To achieve this goal, educators can use videos and present information or directions by pairing verbal with print/visual representation. In a primary school class, key words can be highlighted and defined. In a preschool class, word meanings can be taught before a reading task to facilitate understanding of longer texts.

Multiple Means of Action and Expression considers the variations in the manner in which students are able to express what they have understood and learned. Multiple flexible methods of action and expression are necessary, given that students differ in their desire or ability to express their knowledge. For example, some students may not possess the language skills for these efforts, while others may have difficulty with movement or cognition (e.g., cerebral palsy or executive functions such as planning, attention, and organization). Some students may have problems with vision or hearing, while others may prefer communicating through writing rather than speech. Students who have disabilities or disorders may need assistive technology to support their communication within the classroom. The following example shows that this Principle is essential for students who are not comfortable speaking in front of others, so it is necessary to ask students if they would like to record or write their narratives before asking them to speak aloud in front of their classmates:

Students in a fourth-grade class were asked to read short narratives that they had written to classmates and visiting parents. Although most students presented their narratives with enthusiasm, two students began to cry after beginning to read and could not continue to express their narratives.

To anticipate the variability in student’s strengths and weaknesses, students could be given alternative means to present their written work. For example, they could record their work and play the recording to the class. In summary, all students must be given Multiple Means for Action and Expression.

Multiple Means of Engagement takes account of the ways in which a student can be engaged and motivated to learn. The UDL approach suggests that instructors provide multiple, flexible possibilities for engagement through creating interesting learning opportunities that consider a learner’s background, culture, and interests. Some students are engaged by spontaneous and novel experiences, while others react negatively to novelty and require advance knowledge to adapt. Engagement involves determining the ways students can be engaged or motivated to learn. Engagement is successful when a student’s interests have been discovered, keeping in mind that students vary in their preferences and there is not a single approach to engaging students’ interests. For example, it is important to determine a student’s strengths and interests and consider a student’s language and cultural background. In this way, it is possible to determine the appropriate approach to engagement. In summary, these Principles were developed for instructors to ensure that students are given the chance to successfully learn (Hartmann, 2015). The three Principles lead to Guidelines for strategies for successful learning in the classroom.

Universal Design for Learning Guidelines

The three UDL Principles that have been described provide the basis for UDL Guidelines. Guidelines were developed to assist educators in planning lessons, units for study, curriculum goals, teaching methods, assessments, and educational materials. The Guidelines offer plans for developing a curriculum that addresses the different patterns of learning that constitute variability among learners.

In summary, these Guidelines suggest ways to develop curricula that minimize some of the more crucial barriers to learning.

The Application of Universal Design in Classrooms

The UDL approach was applied in a kindergarten class (Ralabate, 2011), with UDL Principles and Guidelines employed to meet the needs of a child with a bilateral hearing loss. The UDL Guidelines for Multiple Means of Representation were applied to the ways that the child could gain information. Learning information was presented through videos with text and sound. Vocabulary items and main ideas were highlighted, and verbal directions and information were matched with print and visual/image representations. Pre-teaching for new vocabulary and concepts was employed, and visual cues for feedback were used. The UDL Guidelines for Multiple Means of Action and Expression were applied through visual displays, subject outlines, and programs to develop writing abilities. While this approach benefited this child’s learning, the multimodality approach also benefited other students with less apparent sensory difficulties or with different preferences for learning.

Ralabate (2011) also described a fourth-grade child who presented with reading, expressive language, and abstract language comprehension difficulties. The UDL Guidelines for Multiple Means of Representation were implemented through color shading items for emphasis, vocabulary development approaches, and focus on understanding main ideas. This child was presented with graphic organizers and concept maps. The UDL Guidelines for Multiple Means of Action and Expression were applied through digital means with animated characters that provided information to assist comprehension. The UDL Guidelines for Multiple means of engagement were addressed with computer software to support early reading skills, group activities, and the creation of books for science and social study projects. In summary, use of the UDL Principles and Guidelines benefited a student with special needs, while providing a variety of supports to other students in the classrooms with less apparent sensory or cognitive difficulties.

The UDL approach was employed in undergraduate and graduate courses in a college (Levey, 2008). Diversity was shown in a graduate class where students spoke 14 different native languages. In addition, students also possessed variable educational backgrounds and knowledge. Classes also included one or two students with learning disabilities, sensory difficulties, or cognitive disorders. These students were offered support from the disability center for volunteer note-takers, recording devices embedded in a pen, tutoring within the center, and additional time to complete quizzes and exams. The UDL approach was used to address the diverse nature of learning within these classrooms to provide optimal support for learning and to eliminate barriers for successful learning.

UDL Principles and Guidelines for Multiple Means of Representation were applied through lectures paired with PowerPoint presentations and note-taking outlines of the main points of each PowerPoint presentation available through Blackboard. The UDL Principle and Guidelines for Multiple Means of Action and Expression were applied through asking students to form small groups to discuss any material or issues related to lectures. Each group appointed a speaker to express questions, conclusions, or any issues that had emerged during discussion. This approach was used to avoid the anxiety that affected speaking in front of the class. The UDL Principle and Guidelines for Multiple Means of Action and Expression were applied through formative assessment (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2020). Formative assessment allows ongoing measurement of a student’s learning, rather than the traditional summative approach that relies on evaluating students’ learning skills only at discrete points during the term (i.e., a midterm or a final exam). Although these examinations may reveal areas of weakness in the learning process, a final examination occurs too late in the semester to provide support for a student’s learning skills (Moran, 2007).

In both undergraduate and graduate classes, formative assessment took the form of students’ submissions of anonymous reports that identified material as “best learned” and “least learned” at the end of each class. Students’ responses to the material that was considered “least learned” was recorded on Blackboard and covered in the subsequent lecture. This method of education allowed students who were reluctant to express questions during the class to report areas that required additional explanation. A study examined graduate students’ responses to formative assessment across two semesters. Students were presented with a questionnaire that asked if formative assessment led to (a) better understanding of course material, (b) better coverage by the instructor, (c) appreciation of anonymity, (d) asking more questions, and (e) more confidence in asking questions (Levey, 2008). Students reported better understanding of material. They also judged that anonymity was a positive aspect of this approach.

The UDL Guidelines for Multiple Means of Engagement were implemented to minimize anxiety within the classroom. Anxiety is a factor that can be considered a barrier to students’ interactions or responses. Within the traditional classroom, students frequently express anxiety regarding quizzes and exams. To reduce learning anxiety, students were provided with sample questions for all exams and quizzes to acquaint them with the material to be studied and learned. Sample questions from the final exam were presented in the initial class meeting so that students could understand the overall direction and objectives of the course. All sample materials were placed on Blackboard to provide students with the opportunity to engage in ongoing review and to prepare for all tests and examinations.

Students in undergraduate and graduate classes were given the opportunity to take practice quizzes. These quizzes consisted of questions that were similar to those in the actual quiz. The goal was to prepare students for the topics that would be targeted. Students were also given the opportunity to retake a quiz if learning required further study. In this case, the student’s initial quiz grade and the retake grade were averaged. Findings were that students achieved higher scores on retakes. Students in graduate courses were also permitted to create and use 3 x 5 cards containing any material they chose to bring in for a quiz or exam. In this way, students were given the opportunity to contemplate the main aspects of learning that were required. Students reported that this task required a great deal of thought and felt that the creation of these cards enhanced their learning. It was noted that some students who had difficulty with the quiz or exam had not developed the type of 3 × 5 card that was successful for this goal. These students had not written the most relevant information on their cards. It was necessary to meet with these students to develop critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills involve the process of developing concepts, analysis, synthesis of information or ideas, and identification of the relevant information required in a course. In summary, the outcome of the UDL approach was successful learning for students in the undergraduate and graduate classes, with all achieving passing grades.

Diversified Education Approaches

To address the diversity found in classrooms, it is important to consider that diversity may play a role as a potential barrier to learning. Differentiated teaching involves initial and on-going assessment of students’ learning abilities with the goal of providing approaches to diversity and varied learning abilities within the classroom (Hall et al., 2014). Formal or informal assessments, interviews, and general performance indicators are used to assess students’ learning in order to allow alteration or modification of the curriculum to adapt to students’ difficulties following the onset of instruction. There are other educational models that focus on differences in learning: universal design of instruction (UDI; Palmer, 2003) and universal instructional design (UID; Rao et al., 2014). Similar to differentiated teaching and UDL, these models focus on flexible curriculum design and instruction that addresses the needs of diverse learners. UDI is based on principles that focus on equitable and flexible education, perceptible information, and tolerance for error (Posey, 2021). UID involves multimodal material to provide alternative formants for reading material and online options for learning (Palmer, 2003).

These differentiated educational methods are positive approaches to education, providing learning supports to students. The essential difference between UDL and differentiated teaching is that UDL provides principles and guidelines to prepare, in advance, for the variability and diversity that exists within all classrooms. Preparation for variability and diversity is essential, as opposed to attempting to address difficulties only after they appear. To develop materials and strategies to implement the UDL approach, instructors must incorporate these factors during the development of the curriculum, rather than adjusting these factors after the need for support appears within the classroom (Cooper-Martin & Wolanin, 2014). In summary, UDL is available to prepare for diversity in classrooms and variability in students’ learning.

Understanding Differences in the Classroom

In one classroom in the college, students spoke 14 different native languages other than English. Native languages consisted of Spanish (from many different Spanish-speaking countries), Haitian Creole, Bangla, Urdu, Polish, Gaelic, Croatian, Hebrew, French, Russian, German, Arabic, Farsi, and Lithuanian. Given that students enter classrooms with different backgrounds, languages, cultures, abilities, and learning modes, educators must account for these differences. The U.S. Department of Education (2019) reports that English language learners (ELLs) represented an average of 14.0% of total public-school enrollment in cities, 9.3% in suburban areas, 6.5% in towns, and 3.8% in rural areas in 2016. Spanish was the home language of 3.79 million ELL public school students in fall 2016, representing 76.6% of all ELL students and 7.7% of all public K-12 students. Arabic, Chinese, and Vietnamese were the next most commonly reported home languages (spoken by 129,400; 104,100; and 78,700 students, respectively). Given the increased number of students learning a new language within classrooms across the globe, education must consider approaches that address the needs of all learners.

It is also important to consider diversity in learners with disabilities, to assure that these students have equal access to learning materials (Johnston, 2020). Within learning institutions, it is important to work with the offices of disabilities services office to allow accessibility and accommodations to access course materials and lectures online. In addition, there are many students who are second language learners. In this case, it is important to provide a site to allow translation for these learners. In other words, UDL considers multiple means of engagement for all students across all grades and classrooms.

Educators must become aware of diversity, as certain information may be absent from students’ backgrounds. The following example shows the need for the awareness of potential differences:

A student clinician asked a child to name a picture of a baseball. This child was from an African country where soccer, not baseball, was played. Consequently, the child labeled the picture as “Soccer ball.” The student clinician was unaware of cultural differences in games and marked the child’s response as an error. The student was counseled on her error and was told to find articles and sources that describe differences in toys and games across cultures.

The importance of understanding differences was highlighted in a study of students’ comprehension of language and dialect differences (Levey & Sola, 2013). A questionnaire containing 20 statements (12 experimental statements and 8 foils) was presented to 124 students in undergraduate and graduate courses in a college speech-language pathology department in New York City. Experimental questions consisted of statements that involved bilingualism and dialect differences. Students were asked to determine if these examples illustrated differences or reflected disorders. There were two types of questions that required a true or false response: general statements about bilingualism (Parents whose first language is not English should only speak English in the home if their child has a language disorder) and technical linguistic statements (Final consonant deletion beyond the age of 3 is the sign of a speech disorder). Mean scores for participants who had taken a bilingual course were significantly greater for certain technical linguistic statements (M = .37, SD = .25) than for those who had not taken a bilingual course (M = .09, SD = .06), F(1, 11) = 4.62, p < .03. Participants who had taken a course in bilingualism were significantly better able to distinguish language and dialect differences from disorders than participants who had not taken a bilingual course. These findings indicated a need to educate future educators about language and dialect differences to assure evidence-based assessment and treatment of speakers of diverse languages and dialects.

There have been major movements of people across the globe (United Nations Refugee Agency, 2017), with estimates that 65.6 million people have left their original home country and moved to different areas of the world. These moves are sometimes voluntary, with individuals searching for better opportunities for themselves and their families. Often, movements are forced and unplanned due to political unrest, border conflict, ethnic or religious persecution, famine, poverty, or natural disasters. Consequently, we see increased variability and diversity within classrooms, showing the need for the utilization of UDL principles to address these differences.

UDL and Large Lecture Classes

Large classrooms present educators with special problems, such as providing support to students with special needs. To address this problem, a classroom that consisted of 600 students was used to design and implement the UDL approach to meet the needs of a diverse class body with varied learning abilities and preferences (Dean et al., 2017). UDL principles were put into operation by providing students with multiple types of course material, multiple ways of engagement, and multiple ways of expressing ideas and learning. To address these principles within a large classroom, instructors presented students with the Personal Response System (clickers) and MindTap to allow optimal learning and interaction between instructor and student. Lessons were presented in PowerPoint, lecture notes were made available for download before instruction, and example exams were provided for each lesson.

The Personal Response System (clickers) allowed interaction between instructor and students (Dean et al., 2017). For example, when the instructor poses a question, students are able to record responses by using the clicker. Students’ responses are captured and recorded by a system that has the capability of handling hundreds of student responses at once. Clickers allow the instructor to receive feedback on students’ understanding of lecture material, given the ability to collect and view students’ responses. This system also allows an instructor to present a quiz, collect and tabulate results, and display results anonymously to the class.

MindTap is a cloud-based platform that allows an instructor to place course material, an e-book, assignments, and activities on this program (MindTap, 2021). Instructors are able to create a Learning Path containing folders and material that includes assignments and course material integrated with Blackboard. MindTap also allows the instructor to provide text, a dictionary, flashcards for understanding key terms, notebooks for student use, readings, assessment devices, homework, activities, weblinks, and workbooks that meet the objectives of the course. A Learning Path appears when a student opens MindTap, allowing the student to work through these learning units and activities. The instructor is able to view students’ work to identify difficulties if present. This system also allows students to click a ReadSpeaker icon to hear an audio version of a reading task, along with the ability to access web-based information.

These devices and approaches addressed the variability in students’ preferences and abilities in acquiring course content. Students reported that clickers were more effective than MindTap. However, analysis found that MindTap had a stronger impact on learning, with students using MindTap more frequently than clickers (Dean et al., 2017). In summary, the use of this technology allowed instructors to utilize the UDL approach within a large classroom. It is possible to use these devices in a classroom of any size to support the learning process and to provide enhanced interaction between students and instructors.

The Effectiveness of UDL

The effectiveness of UDL was assessed in an examination of 17 peer-reviewed papers, published from 2012 to 2015, which provided empirical results on the use of this approach (Al-Azawei et al., 2016). Most of the selected studies examined UDL in a learning context, while two studies evaluated its effectiveness in online learning. The majority of studies were carried out in the United States and responses were elicited from instructors and learner. Student perception of the UDL approach reported high satisfaction, positive attitudes, and greater engagement. This review also found that the UDL approach reduced learning barriers between disabled and nondisabled students. A second study involved the meta-analysis of 18 peer-reviewed articles published between 2013 and 2016 (Capp, 2017). Initially, 924 articles were identified that addressed UDL, but only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were selected for review. It was found that UDL was an effective approach for learning for all students, based on the report that the implementation of UDL led to reduced student stress, increased confidence, and improved teacher/student relations.

A study of the effectiveness of instructor training in UDL principles examined student responses within college classrooms (Davies et al., 2012). A UDL questionnaire was given to students, with 386 responding, before and after instructors received UDL training in five 1-hr sessions. Readings were also provided to instructors to supplement training sessions. There were 57 (9.3%) of students who reported having a disability. The questionnaire revealed positive responses for the UDL approach in the classrooms. The UDL strategies that were reported to have the greatest effect were the presentation of material in multiple formats, the relation of key concepts to larger course objectives, the provision of a course outline at the beginning of each lecture, a summary of material throughout each class session, the highlights of key points, the use of instructional videos, and the provision of well-organized and accessible materials.

At the request of the Office of Special Education and Student Services, UDL projects were evaluated during spring 2013 at elementary and middle schools (Cooper-Martin & Wolanin, 2014). Engagement areas that were examined were the following: academic engagement (being on task), affective engagement (enthusiasm), and cognitive engagement (self-regulation). All types of engagement were significantly greater for students in the UDL project schools than for the comparison schools in Grades 6–8. However, only affective engagement was greater in the UDL project schools for Grades 3–5. These researchers suggested that engagement may be greater overall for younger children.

A review of UDL implementation in 17 articles examined the effectiveness of this approach in college classrooms (Soek et al., 2018). Across this research, the most common independent variables were UDL principle-based course design and implementation, hands-on activities, and the education of instructors on the UDL approach. Dependent variables included course evaluation, learning outcomes, and UDL and disability knowledge. Strategies focused on UDL principles through the use of web-based computer-mediated communication, web-based class management systems, and technology. Research that used group comparison between experimental and control groups found statistically significant differences between these two groups. Overall, findings revealed positive learning outcomes relative to the effectiveness and practicality of UDL for students with and without disabilities at the postsecondary level. In summary, findings show that UDL can play a positive role across all grades, from preschool through college. In summary, UDL is a research-based framework accessible and effective for students across all grades, including those who are struggling academically and those with special needs (Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2019).

Barriers to the Utilization of UDL

An examination of teachers’ perceptions of the use of UDL found that certain barriers affected the utilization of this approach (Jordan Anstead, 2016). A survey and interviews in a school that contained students with mild disabilities in Grades 3 through 11 examined teachers’ reports on utilizing the UDL approach. There were some teachers who reported that UDL provided a positive approach for diverse learners with varied learning skills, allowing all students to better understand information. Barriers to the utilization of UDL were absence of the ability to collaborate with other teachers to share their experience and expertise with this approach, absence of a model lesson to support their understanding of how UDL could be utilized, and absence of time to work beyond their own responsibilities. To utilize UDL, it is necessary for educators to become familiar with the UDL approach, along with developing a program that is consistent with the principles and guidelines of this approach (Hall et al., 2014).

The Application of UDL Instruction

The application of UDL has been shown to have a positive effect on students’ learning and may play a role in student success in completing programs of study. The inclusion of UDL instruction has been argued to be essential to attract and assure the success of students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs (Schreffler et al., 2019), as many competent students drop out and individuals with disabilities are underrepresented in these programs. These authors contended that it is essential that STEM faculty prepare to engage all students in the education process through the use of UDL. In this way, the accessibility of STEM for all students may lead to an increase in these studies in colleges and universities by an underrepresented population. It was also argued UDL meets the needs of all students, with or without disabilities.

It is possible to institute UDL training for educators. The effects of training in UDL on lesson plan development for special and general instructors in college classrooms were examined in a 1-hr session for special and general educators (Spooner et al., 2007). Based on a three-factor analysis of variance with repeated measures for UDL lesson plans, findings were that these educators were able to design a lesson plan that addressed the needs of all students in the classroom. Thus, if schools would arrange the necessary training for instructors, it may support their ability to use the UDL approach.

In the absence of UDL training, there are strategies that can be used within the classroom (Rose & Meyer, 2002). For example, multiple strategies are be used for case studies, videos, group discussions of material, website information, and summaries of a lecture or material. Multiple learning contexts can be provided, such as individual meetings, pairing students for work or discussion, and/or grouping students for work or discussion. Multiple materials can be provided, including online resources, videos, PowerPoint presentations, e-books, and other methods for learning information presented in the classroom. In addition, assessment of progress can be undertaken in an ongoing manner.

Technological Supports for Universal Design for Learning

UDL emphasizes the need for accessible information for students with disabilities (large print, technical devices, and interpreters) and multiple formats (computers or software, graphic organizers, manipulatives, and PowerPoint). Educators may use high-tech tools (e.g., computers, iPads, videos) or low-tech tools (e.g., picture cards or alphabet boards) to provide accessible information to students who require support for learning. Computers play an important role in the UDL approach. For example, text can be enlarged for students with visual difficulties through the use of apps that allow students to read material (“50 Best iPad Apps for Reading Disabilities,” 2017).

Assistive features are built into iPads for students who require support for visual, hearing, motor, or literacy needs. Kidspiration (2019) software for early grade learners uses pictures, text, numbers, and spoken words for vocabulary, word recognition, reading comprehension, writing, and critical thinking skills. Smart Notebook (2019) allows an instructor to create learning activities through animation.

Students can use desktop computers, tablets, laptops, or any other device to engage in and complete the activities created by the instructor. With the use of the Smart Notebook, classroom tasks can address a variety of topics (e.g., math, science, shapes, language tasks, or any task chosen by the instructor). Scene & Heard (2021) is an app that can be used for images in storytelling for those who require larger context. The app provides a communication book, color-coded visual timetable, and options for adding audio and video to a task that can be downloaded to an iPad.

Technological supports can address the needs of students with varied disorders or learning needs (Lynch, 2017), such as apps that can be used for students who require additional support for learning. Students with dyslexia or dysgraphia can benefit from ModMath (2019). This app allows students to solve math problems without use of a pencil. MyTalkTools (2019) is an app for students with communication difficulties that allows students to communicate by the creation of words, sounds, and pictures. The Dyslexia Toolbox (2018) provides students with dyslexia a variety of assistive technology features.

The Smartpen (2010) captures spoken language and ties it to written notes on special paper. The recording can then be played back with a simple touch of the pen on the paper. An app that addresses the users’ feelings and moods is Stop, Breathe & Think (2019). An app that benefits students with reading disabilities and an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is Voice Dream (2019). This app allows students to highlight text, which can then be read aloud. UDL provides a path of instruction through apps to support learning (Welsford, 2019). In terms of multiple means of representation, apps offer flexible formats, such as text that can be read aloud or in print. In terms of multiple means of expression, apps can address the diversity of students’ strengths and preferences for learning. In terms of multiple means of engagement, apps allow varied formats for presenting information within the classroom through visual, auditory, or tactile methods.

Discussion

This article presents Principles and Guidelines associated with the UDL approach to education, along with examples of the application of UDL in the classroom. Given the increase in the number of migrants entering schools across the globe, UDL provides the ability to meet the needs of new language learners. UDL is an approach that accounts for the variability among learners, minimizes barriers to learning, and assures successful learning for all students within a classroom. There are a growing number of new language learners in the United States, shown in the statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Education (2019). Given the large-scale movement of individuals across the globe, there will be many second-language learners in classrooms. To assure that future educators can provide learning for a diverse student population, it is essential that schools and colleges establish a course that educates students in understanding diversity and cultural differences. There is evidence that students who have taken a bilingual course that focuses on diversity have a better understanding of language and cultural differences (Levey & Sola, 2013). For those who have already graduated, this knowledge can be gained through continuing education. Along with ELLs, it is estimated that one out of five students in classrooms have learning or attention difficulties (CAST, 2018c). Given possible difficulties, it is essential that a UDL approach be considered for planning, in advance, to meet the needs of these students. Although there may be students with evident difficulties, the UDL approach allows support for students with difficulties that were not identified before entering the classroom. UDL Principles and Guidelines allow educators to plan a curriculum that benefits all students.

The UDL approach has been adopted in some states and school districts in the United States. In 2010, the United States National Education Technology Plan stated that the implementation of UDL Principles would improve the educational outcomes of diverse learners (Ralabate, 2011). The UDL approach was also implemented in South Africa to address barriers to learning in the educational system (Dalton et al., 2012). In South Africa, a UDL expert assisted in developing a workshop for teachers and therapists who worked with students with disabilities in mainstream or special education schools. The goal was to meet the needs of these students through understanding the concepts associated with the UDL approach, its application in the classroom, and the process of identifying relevant assistive devices and computer technology to support the students’ learning needs.

As reflected in the study that teachers faced difficulty in utilizing the UDL approach, it is also necessary that programs be established to familiarize educators with this method of teaching. There have been barriers identified that affect the utilization of UDL within classrooms, mainly based on the absence of training programs and time constraints. In spite of the absence of training, there are strategies that can be used to address learning, such as the consideration of multiple methods to convey information (videos, PowerPoint, summaries, or group work for discussion of course information). UDL offers an alternative approach that relies on student-centered instruction, retention, and classroom supports for learning goals that considers variability and diversity within the student body and minimizes barriers to learning. It is important to consider this approach to assure learning in all classrooms.

Conclusion

UDL is a framework derived from neurodiversity, architecture, and learning sciences that addresses variability within classrooms. This educational approach to recognizing and addressing variability allows students to achieve success in the classroom through reducing barriers to learning. This approach benefits all learners and assures learning, which is the primary goal of education. There are many ways to understand certain classroom topics. Students can learn through lectures, videos, readings, and many other means. The important thing is that all students learn and understand the information that is being presented to them. Educators must become aware of individuals’ backgrounds, cultures, and languages. In this way, there will be a positive interaction with students as the educator will better understand the individual’s knowledge, needs, and strengths. The goal of the UDL approach is to assure that students are successful in learning. Readers may consult the CAST (2018a) website for additional information, case studies, and guidance on the UDL approach.