This new version takes UDL several steps further than its predecessors, with a new focus on systemic, cultural and language bias rather than solely on physical, sensory and cognitive accessibility.

While some critics ponder what UDL 3.0 means for teacher planning time, others embrace it as an effective framework to support inclusion for all learners.

What is UDL?

In a nutshell, UDL is a framework which has been developed over many years to offer a way of building accessible learning structures for students with and without disability. UDL approaches learning in the context of three phases:

  • Multiple means of engagement (the ‘why’ of learning)

  • Multiple means of representation (the ‘what’ of learning)

  • Multiple means of action and expression (the ‘how’ of learning)

New to the 3.0 version is the focus on ‘who’ – considering the learner’s identity as an intrinsic part of their learning experience. It considers how identity within cultures, language groups, socio-economic groups and peer groups impacts the learning experience.

It also highlights the importance of co-creating learning experiences to increase agency for learners.

A handy example of the rationale behind UDL comes from an early NAPLAN question which asked students to respond to a scenario where a paperboy had delivered a newspaper to a letterbox. Which is perfectly fine if you live somewhere that has newspapers and paperboys, and indeed letter boxes. It is far more challenging if you live on a rural property and you’ve never seen a letter box – or a newspaper.

How does it work?

A UDL approach to teaching and learning can look and sound as varied as the classrooms in which it is applied. At its core, UDL is designed around offering options that are meaningful for students, and which provide multiple access points.

For example, engagement could mean providing the lesson intent on a whiteboard, including learning checkpoints or offering a range of topic choices.

Providing content in a range of ways such as digital and print, page design options and supportive technologies are all examples of representation.

Offering options for sharing learning through interactive notebooks, visual note taking, projects or talk and share sessions show how action and expression can be altered to provide choice and autonomy for students.

Does it work?

As educators, we know it’s important to look for evidence to support an approach before we use it with our students. ‘Does it work?’ is a very reasonable question to pose, but unfortunately like many things in life, the answer is not a simple yes or no.

If the question is ‘has there been research?’ then the answer is a clear yes. But diving a little deeper reveals the murkiness that comes with large sample size educational research.

We know the most reliable evidence tends to come from large groups of people, and with research that can be repeated to show similar results several times over. In the case of UDL however, the framework itself is large and far reaching, making the research design process challenging.

There are, however, many studies which have explored universal design in everything from teaching chemistry to high school students through to scaffolding writing instruction and learning vocabulary. 

Studies have covered a range of age groups from early years through to tertiary education, as well as initial teacher education and skills in applying UDL concepts to lesson planning to support inclusive education for all students.

Can it work?

One of the critiques of UDL is that it demands too much of teacher time. Indeed, if the take home message was that teachers need to design every lesson from the ground up with different options for every student, then that would certainly be true.

But UDL was never intended to have teachers rewriting lesson plans to include 25 different variations for everyone. Instead, UDL offers a guide for thinking about how to plan and teach in ways which reach all students, so that learning is joyful and engaging.

It avoids the pitfalls of systemic bias and focuses instead on choice and autonomy so that learning has real purpose, now and in the future lives of all students.