If you’ve been following this journal, you know that we’ve covered Universal Design for Learning (UDL) from the perspective of several KU faculty members who employ it in their unique teaching and learning situations. Coincidentally, I had a conversation about UDL recently with a non-KU colleague and was interested to find out how often Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was used interchangeably with Differentiated Instruction (DI) at their institution. Though they are analogous approaches that accommodate diverse learning styles and backgrounds, they go about it in different ways.
For background, Differentiated Instruction (DI) emerged as a model in 1995 (Tomlinson, 1995) with the goal "to maximize student growth and individual success" (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000, p. 4). Differentiated Instruction tailors teaching methods to the individual student needs, recognizing that each comes from different social contexts and has unique cognitive strengths, and adapting instructional strategies accordingly. By considering language skills, cultural backgrounds, and personal interests, Differentiated Instruction helps create a more welcoming and inclusive individualized learning environment.
Similarly, Universal Design for Learning was developed in the late 1990s by researchers at the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). The concept was based on the principles of Universal Design (UD), which originated in the field of architecture in the 1980s to make environments accessible and convenient for everyone, regardless of age, ability, or status in life. UDL is a framework designed to create flexible learning environments that can accommodate all learners by providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression. In practical terms, engagement focuses on keeping students interested and motivated in their learning; representation involves presenting information in various ways to ensure every student can access and understand the material; and expression allows all students to demonstrate their understanding through different formats, giving them the freedom to showcase their knowledge in ways that feel authentic to them.
What’s the difference between UDL and DI?
What differentiates UDL from DI is that it encourages faculty to offer choices for all students to interact with the material, show what they know, and stay motivated. It’s about removing barriers and making learning accessible for everyone.
We can use the analogy of coaching sports to contrast DI with UDL. In DI, you might have a player focusing on speed while another is working on accuracy. The coach decides what each player needs based on their skills and tailors a training program specifically for them. While this can work, it can also get pretty tricky and time-consuming. There’s a lot of pressure on the coach to figure out what each individual needs, and sometimes, they might miss the mark on what would help.
Now, let’s compare that to UDL. Imagine a practice where there are different drills set up for various skills—dribbling, passing, shooting, and so on. In this setup, players can choose which drills to work on based on what they feel they need to improve. The coach is there to provide guidance and options, but the players take the lead in deciding what works best for them. It’s all about empowering them to take charge of their growth.
How does this work in the classroom?
At the ground level, UDL allows students to take responsibility for their learning. For example, when exploring a text, they might have the option to read it, listen to an audio version, or watch a video summary. This way, they can engage with the material in a way that feels right to them. And when it comes to showing what they’ve learned, students could write an essay, create a video presentation, or design an infographic. This flexibility allows them to express their understanding in a way that resonates with them.
The beauty of UDL is that it recognizes each student’s uniqueness, embracing those differences from the start rather than adjusting later. Faculty can make learning more engaging by incorporating gamified elements or real-world problem-solving activities that connect with students' interests. By contrast, DI can place additional demands on faculty by requiring them to assess each student's learning preferences, often leading to grouping students based on skill levels, which may unintentionally label students by their abilities. UDL offers a more sustainable approach: it provides choices that preserve your creative energy, fostering a classroom where students take charge of their learning. Like anything worthwhile UDL takes time and effort to implement, but the benefits — an inclusive learning environment where every student can thrive — make it worthwhile.
You can learn more about UDL by signing up for the January CEL Basics of UDL course, or during the summer as part of the CEL Engaged Teaching and Learning program.
References
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in a mixed ability classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Douglas Scott is a charter member of the Center for Engaged Learning after serving 10 years as the Director of Distance Education and Instructional Design at Kutztown University. Prior to his career in Higher Education, he spent 15 years in architectural and archaeological consulting, specializing in historic site interpretation, historic preservation, and materials conservation. In his downtime, he collects vintage wristwatches and freelances as a historic interpretive designer.