Journal Pre-proof

Exploring the interrelationship between universal design for learning (UDL) and differentiated
instruction (DI): A systematic review

Júlia Griful-Freixenet, Katrien Struyven, Wendelien Vantieghem, Esther Gheyssens

PII: S1747-938X(19)30019-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100306
Reference: EDUREV 100306

To appear in: Educational Research Review

Received Date: 25 January 2019

Revised Date: 20 November 2019
Accepted Date: 3 December 2019

Please cite this article as: Griful-Freixenet, Jú., Struyven, K., Vantieghem, W., Gheyssens, E., Exploring the
interrelationship between universal design for learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction (DI): A systematic
review, Educational Research Review (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.edurev.2019.100306.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will
undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during
the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Exploring the Interrelationship between Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and
Differentiated Instruction (DI): A Systematic Review

Júlia Griful-Freixenet1, Katrien Struyven1,2, Wendelien Vantieghem1, and Esther Gheyssens1

1
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
2
Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Júlia Griful-Freixenet,

Department of Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050
Brussels, Belgium.
E-mail: julia.griful.freixenet@vub.be
 Exploring the Interrelationship between Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and

Differentiated Instruction (DI): A Systematic Review

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, inclusive education has achieved international importance

as a leading educational movement with developments in theory, policy and practice (OECD,

2010). However, inclusion is a complex concept to tackle, due to its multiple faces and

ongoing evolution (Artiles & Kozleski, 2007). There are four core approaches worldwide that

relate to the ongoing development of theories towards inclusive education: the human rights-

based perspective (from 1948 onwards); a response to children with special needs (from 1990

onwards); a response to marginalized groups (from 2000 onwards); and transforming

education systems to reach all students - and not vice versa - (from 2005 onwards) (Opertti,

Walker, & Zhang, 2014). Needless to say, the concept has had an extensive variety of

definitions used by many authors from different contexts.

In general, a consistent implementation of inclusive education as a movement to

transform education systems at large is the exception rather than the norm (Ball & Tyson,

2011). The vast majority of education systems worldwide still focused either on children with

special needs or on marginalized groups (Messiou, 2017), and the educational model that

prevails is based on the fallacy of a one-size-fits-all curriculum (Haager & Klingner, 2005).

Despite this inconsistency, inclusive teaching with a focus on all learners is an obligatory

professional competence for teachers supported by policy measures in many countries

(UNESCO, 2005, 2015). Not surprisingly, research has shown that teachers’ knowledge

about how to meet the diverse learning needs of the student population is far from settled

(Acquah, Tandon, & Lempinen, 2016). This deficit contributes to the rise in the number of
 2

students at risk of educational failure (Lipsky, 2005) and to the increase in labelling and

segregation of children with special needs (Banks, 2007). To overcome these shortcomings,

an important part of the literature presents two inclusive pedagogical models with the

potential to transform the broader educational system and counteract the current one-size-fits-

all approach: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Differentiated Instruction (DI)

(Reilly & Migyanka, 2016; Stegemann, 2016; UNESCO, 2016; Wlodarczyk, Somma,

Bennet, & Gallagher, 2015).

In the next section (see 2. theoretical framework), we provide a short overview of

both pedagogical models. It will become clear to the reader that, although both models

originated from different fields (i.e. students with disabilities vs. gifted education), an

increasing conceptual overlap between both models can be identified over time. This has led

to confusion in the field on the exact interrelationship between UDL and DI, with potential

repercussions for educational policy and practice. Therefore, we subsequently present a

literature review that systematically identifies all different interrelationships between UDL

and DI, and clarifies each of them.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

UDL was inspired by the architectural concept of Universal Design (UD), which was

developed in the 1980s. UD challenged designers of architectural spaces to plan and create

their products with all persons in mind, rather than adapting to their personal needs after the

fact (Connell et al., 1997). In 1998, following the American reauthorization of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), David Rose, Anne Meyer, and

colleagues at the CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology) developed the UDL model

by extending the UD concept to the learning environment in order to provide students with

disabilities access
2
 3

to the general education curriculum. The UDL model encompasses three core principles:

multiple means of representation (i.e., present information and content in different ways);

multiple means of action and expression (i.e., differentiate the ways that students can express

what they know); and multiple means of engagement (i.e. stimulate interest in and motivation

for learning) (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Each principle has three related guidelines that can be

used as a rubric or tool to guide the implementation of UDL in education (CAST, 2008,

2011a). Basically, UDL encourages educators to design accessible curricula and learning

environments for the widest range of students by reducing the number of barriers to learning

at the outset. Therefore, the focus is the learning environment, rather than any particular

student (Rose & Meyer, 2002). More recently, proponents have suggested approaching the

utopian goal of “anticipating the needs of all students by incorporating modifications from

the outset” (Rose & Meyer, 2002) by encouraging educators to create flexible designs from

the start that have customizable options, which allow all learners to progress from where they

are and not where we would have imagined them to be (CAST, 2011a, 2014). In order to

achieve this, Gordon, Meyer, and Rose (2014) have moved the assessment component, in

particular the formative assessment, to the front line in order to collect evidence of student

progress.

2.2. Differentiated Instruction (DI)

Differentiated Instruction (DI) is rooted in the belief that variability exists in any

group of students. Therefore, educators should expect student diversity and adjust their

instruction accordingly. The leading model of DI was developed by Carol Ann Tomlinson

(1999, 2001), and has been refined throughout the last years. The initial applications of her

practical model involved gifted students and distinguished three forms of DI responding to

the students based on students’ personal interests, readiness and learning profiles (i.e.

3
 4

preferred approaches to learning). Moreover, this model encourages teachers to differentiate

the lesson by adjusting any or all three of the components of the curriculum: content (i.e.

input, what students learn); process (i.e. how students go about making sense of ideas and

information); and product (i.e. output, or how students demonstrate what they have learned).

Other general principles of the model were on-going assessment and adaptations, and the

flexible grouping strategies. More recently, DI theory has evolved into both a philosophy and

a whole-classroom teaching approach (Tomlinson, 2005a) in which teachers need to be

proactive, involving modifying curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities and

student products in anticipation of and response to student differences in readiness, interest

and learning needs in order to maximize learning opportunities for every student in the

classroom (Tomlinson, 2014, 2017).

2.3. Fuzziness around the interrelationship between UDL and DI

The perceivable conceptual overlap between UDL and DI has led to an increasing

number of different interpretations of the interrelationship between UDL and DI in the

literature. This has resulted in confusion and bias on how exactly both models relate to each

other in practice, research and policy levels (National Center on Universal Design for

Learning, 2012). This situation is especially acute as educational practitioners worldwide are

being encouraged to use both models (European Commission, 2017; OECD, 2018;

UNESCO, 2004, 2016) and some are even confronted with them by law, for instance in the

USA, with the educational law Higher Education Opportunity Act from 2008.

Therefore, in order to clarify the different interrelationships between both models that

exist, this review explored which types of interrelationships between UDL and DI are

described in the literature. To answer this research question, a systematic literature review

was conducted in order to identify all scientific papers that had contrasted both UDL and DI

4
 5

and/or discussed the interrelationship between both models. For each identified paper,

conceptual similarities and differences of both models were extracted and categorized (when

applicable). This was followed by a critical discussion on the different types of

interrelationships between UDL and DI that emerged from our review by providing an

overview of examples from each category. By doing so, we did not only reveal the different

ways in which researchers think about the connection between UDL and DI, we also

highlighted in the discussion the underlying assumptions and reasons for authors approaching

this connection in one way over the other. Hence, this systematic analysis will be a powerful

tool for future researchers to better pinpoint the different types of interrelationships between

both models.

3. Method

3.1. Literature search procedure

For this study, a systematic literature review was conducted in order to evaluate and

analyse all available evidence relevant to our study objective (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). In

an initial step, articles for review were identified by searching five scientific databases

(ERIC, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Education Full Text and Science Direct) for records in

which the title, abstract and/or keywords contained both the terms ‘universal design for

learning’ AND ‘differentiated instruction’. These databases were selected because they are

the main databases in the field of education, pedagogy, psychology and social sciences.

Studies included in the review met the following criteria: (1) were published in peer-reviewed

journals in the English language; (2) explicitly contrasted both UDL and DI and/or literally

discussed their interrelationship; and (3) referenced both UDL and DI by citing an author or

study. As we wanted to get a relevant overview of our particular research question, articles

published in any period of time were eligible for inclusion.

5
 6

Figure 1 shows that the number of hits from the first-level search was not large

(n=32). Using the inclusion criteria, two authors studied the full text of these articles. This

yielded a total of seven articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. When the research team

examined the results of the first level of extraction, we were concerned that some

explanations of the interrelationship between UDL and DI may have been missed because

our database search did not consider the body of the articles. Thus, to ensure that all articles

contrasting UDL and DI were selected, we performed a second level of systematic review,

consisting of a systematic search of the Education Full Text and Google Scholar databases,

two databases that allow to search within the articles’ full text. The same keywords as in the

first level of the systematic review were used. When built-in search filters were available, the

search excluded results based on citations referred to by other scholarly articles, but which

the database did not find online. For the second-level search, the full text of the articles was

examined (n= 2,048) using the pre-defined inclusion criteria, which yielded a total of 24

articles. Additionally, three articles that met the criteria derived from hand searching

references of the included articles were also included. Combining all these search levels

yielded, excluding duplicates, a total of 27 articles. All the searches were done during a four-

month period that ended in mid-September 2017. See Figure 1 for the detailed search string

results.

3.2. Rationale for the inclusion/exclusion criteria

Regarding the first criterion, both peer-reviewed empirical and conceptual articles

were included. Following the American Psychological Association (APA) (2017), articles are

regarded as empirical if they gain new knowledge on a topic based on facts, experiment, or

systematic observation, rather than on theory or philosophical principle. In contrast,

conceptual articles are primarily based on theory, ideas, frameworks, or speculation. They

may contain some empirical observations or data, but these will be in a secondary or

6
 7

supporting role only (Urbach, Smolnik, & Riempp, 2009). Because the main goal of the

review was to identify the interrelationships between UDL and DI and clarify them, both

peer-reviewed empirical and conceptual articles were included. Regarding the second

inclusion criterion, authors needed to literally discuss the interrelationship in order to be

included (e.g. “UDL encompasses DI”; “Differentiation has evolved to what now is known as

UDL”), rather than using figurative descriptions to let the reader interpret it on his own.

Specific examples of excluded articles are provided below. To be included, authors could

also contrast both models by using transition words (e.g. however, too, also) or phrases (e.g.

on the other hand, in contrast) as means of linking their ideas to clarify the relationship. This

decision was based on the criterion of a previous literature review on Universal Design

models (Rao et al., 2014). Similarly, in the third criterion, authors needed to explicitly

contrast both UDL and DI and/or literally discuss their interrelationship and also cite any

specific author or study when referring to UDL and DI. In that way, we tried to avoid articles

that perceive UDL or DI as general concepts (e.g. DI perceived as the verb differentiate).

Moreover, study/articles settings were included regardless of year of publication.

Regarding the first-level search, we excluded articles wherein (a) tables were used in

order to relate UDL and DI instead of written explanations (Borders, Jones, & Michalak,

2012); (b) titles and subtitles were used to dicuss the interrelationship instead of written

explanations (Lynch & Warner, 2008); and (c) references on the conceptualizations of UDL

or DI were missing (Bennett, 2016; Kaderavek, 2009).

Regarding the second-level search, we excluded articles wherein: (a) UDL and DI

were not explicitly contrasted using transition words (e.g. Navarro, Zervas, Gesa, &

Sampson, 2016; Nikolaraizi, Vekiri, & Easterbrooks, 2013; Prain et al., 2013; Wlodarczyk et

al., 2015); (b) only commonalities between UDL and DI models were described, without

specifying the interrelationship (e.g. Edyburn, 2006; Mulrine & Flores-Marti, 2014;

7
 8

O’Rourke, Main, & Ellis, 2013; Stegemann, 2016); (c) an ‘intersection’ between UDL and DI

was mentioned but no further details were given (Adebayo & Shumba, 2014); (d) tables were

used in order to relate UDL and DI instead of written explanations (Utley, 2006); (e)

similarities, differences or a relationship between UDL and DI were promised but in the end

they were not specified (e.g. Howard, 2003); (f) DI was not refered to by any author or study

(e.g. Izzo, 2012; Okolo, Englert, Bouck, Heutsche, & Wang, 2011; Vitelli, 2015; Zascavage

& Winterman, 2009); (g) UDL was not refered to by any author or study (e.g. Kuo, 2015;

Morningstar, Shogren, Lee, & Born, 2015); (h) titles and subtitles were used to discuss the

interrelationship instead of written explanations (e.g. Mazzotti et al., 2009; Russell,

Hoffmann, & Higgins, 2009); and (i) UDL and/or DI were only mentioned in the

bibliography (e.g. Keeler & Horney, 2007; Watt et al., 2014). The researchers had several

meetings to decide which publications would be included in the review. In the case of

disagreement, the researchers discussed the article until 100% agreement was reached. Using

these criteria and checking for duplicates across the two levels of extraction, we included 27

different articles in the review (see Figure 1).

3.3. Coding procedure

An analytical framework was developed to systematically review all papers that were

identified in the systematic search, based on Cooper’s guidelines (2017). The framework

consisted of two code sheets used to organize essential information. The first code sheet

contained the following study characteristics of all the articles specified by Cooper (2017):

year, participants, study setting, research design, study purpose, country (when applicable)

(see Table 1). Also, following Cooper’s guidelines, a second code sheet was used to organize

the data on the independent variable: the description of the UDL and DI interrelationship. All

the categories of the first code sheet and the category based on the description of the UDL

and DI interrelationship of the second sheet were established a priori. As specified in

8
 9

Cooper’s guidelines (2017), if the number of studies involved in the systematic review is

small, it may not be necessary to have a precise idea about the information to collect before

the examination. As our sample was rather small (n=27), we reread the articles until we had a

good notion of what elements related to the independent variable were relevant for coding

(Cooper, 2017). These elements consisted of four categories that emerged only after the

articles had been reread, namely: similarities, differences, description of the implementation

of both UDL and DI, and results of the study when related to UDL and DI, which were then

included in the second sheet (see Tables 2, 3, 4).

Regarding the category based on the description of the UDL and DI interrelationship,

the information was summarized and then analysed using a holistic approach based on Euler

and Venn diagrams, which is a widely-used method for visualizing theoretic

interrelationships such as enclosure, exclusion and intersection (Flower, Stapleton, &

Rodgers, 2014; Stapleton, Howse, & Taylor, 2003).

Two coders coded all 27 articles independently. Both coders then recoded a randomly

selected 70% of the articles (n=19), again independently, using the refined coding

framework. After more formal discussion on differences among the coding sets, the coders

reached 100% agreement on the final codes.

4. Results

4.1. Appraising the articles

The search yielded articles published between 2005 and 2017. The 27 peer-reviewed

articles were evenly spread throughout this period of time. A total of 30% (n=8) of the

articles were empirical articles, which had the aim of gaining new knowledge on a topic

based on facts, experiment, or systematic observation, rather than theory or philosophical

principle (APA, 2017). As can be seen in Table 1, five empirical articles used a qualitative

9
 10

approach, and three a quantitative approach. Regarding the purpose of these articles, five

focused mainly on UDL, two on DI and one on addressing students’ needs in general. The

purpose of the articles was extracted from the titles and abstracts of each article. The target

group consisted of primary school students (1), lower-secondary school students (1), higher

education students (1), pre-service teachers (1), primary education teachers (2), secondary

education teachers (1), school community members (1) and the Greek–Cypriot national

curriculum (1).

The other 70% (n=19) of the sample were conceptual articles, whose authors dealt

with theoretical or conceptual issues (APA, 2017). Conceptual articles are based less on data

in the traditional sense, but involve assumptions, axioms, premises and combination of

evidence from a variety of sources (Hirschheim, 2008). However, with regard to our research

question, these were derived from questionable sources (i.e. authors’ personal intuition,

online documents, editorials) (see Tables 2, 3, 4). As can be seen in Table 1, the main focus

of these 19 conceptual papers was on UDL (6), DI (3), UDL and DI (1), students with

disabilities (3), student diversity (2) and best inclusive practices (4).

It can be seen that 40% (n= 11) of the overall sample focused mainly on UDL and

around 20% (n=5) on DI. Importantly, only one article from the sample had as a main focus

the conceptual exploration of both UDL and DI, together with a new theory called ‘retrofit

framework’ (Stanford & Reeves, 2009). Interestingly, none of the 27 peer-reviewed articles

contrasted both UDL and DI models empirically. The interrelationship between UDL and DI

was only described on a theoretical and conceptual level. Although we would have expected

the arguments of the empirical articles with regard to UDL and DI to be of superior quality,

this was not always the case. As with the conceptual articles, empirical articles tended to

justify the UDL and DI interrelationship using arguments based excessively on the authors’

personal intuition (see Tables 2, 3, 4) and/or by referring to non-peer-reviewed online

10
 11

documents written by the proponents of UDL (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003). For this

reason, we decided not to make a distinction between empirical and conceptual articles when

analysing the interrelationships between UDL and DI.

When defining and contrasting UDL and DI models, the majority of the literature

(70%; n=19) referred directly to the UDL model of CAST, and especially to the early work of

Rose and Meyer in 2002. The other 30% (n=8) of the articles cited other authors when

describing the UDL model. However, when examining these original sources (i.e. Basham &

Marino, 2013; Council for Exceptional Children, 2005; McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006; Nolet

& McLaughlin, 2000; Orkwis & McLane, 1998; Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2007), it was

found that they also referred to the UDL model of CAST. In addition, in one article, the

author developed a new model based on the UDL of CAST, named Three Block Model of

Universal Design for Learning (Katz, 2013).

Regarding DI, 90% (n=25) of the articles referred to the model of Tomlinson,

especially her initial work of 1999 and/or 2001. Only two articles referred to sources other

than Tomlinson (i.e. Van Garderen, Scheuermann, Jackson, & Hampton, 2009; Westwood,

2001). When examining these original sources, it was found that one also referred to the DI

model of Tomlinson but the other interpreted DI as the act of differentiating the curriculum.

However, when defining and contrasting both UDL and DI models, a vast majority of

the articles cited more than two different sources for each model (i.e., online guidelines,

books, reports, chapters, conceptual articles) mostly from Tomlinson and CAST proponents

and from different time periods. Also, in some cases, articles cited five or six different

sources for UDL (e.g., Edyburn, 2010; Meo, 2008) and for DI (Tobin, 2008).

Regarding the country where the articles were written, the majority of the overall

sample (70%; n=19) were conducted in the USA. This is not surprising as both UDL and DI

11
 12

are models that originated in the USA and are implemented in US legislation. The rest were

from Canada (3), Australia (2), South Korea (1), Cyprus (1) and Belgium (1).

4.2. Interrelationships between UDL and DI

Based on Venn and Euler diagrams, geometric figures representing power differences

between UDL and DI were drawn in an overlapping fashion (see Figure 2) and from the

analysis, three clear categories appeared: 1) The complementarity interrelationship between

UDL and DI, which relies on the idea that two figures overlap but do not coincide, and the

degree of non-overlap indicates substantial unique content (Southan, Várkonyi, & Muresan,

2007); 2) The embedded interrelationship of DI within UDL, which relies on the idea that

smaller diagrams occur inside bigger diagrams (Smessaert & Demey, 2014); and 3) The

distinctive/ incompatible interrelationship between UDL and DI, in which the regions of the

diagrams do not overlap and demonstrate disjoint sets (Flower et al., 2014; Moritz & Faith,

1998). In Tables 2, 3 and 4 the results are reported for each interrelationship found. The

presentation of the results is structured in a framework built on the three different

interrelationships between DI and UDL.

4.2.1. UDL and DI as complementary theories

Table 2 summarizes the similarities, differences and implementation of UDL and DI,

which were found in 10 articles reporting complementarity between the models. We found

that eight articles perceived a shared goal between UDL and DI, which consisted of meeting

the diverse needs of all students in the classroom. Numerous converging concepts related to

inclusive education characteristics were also recognized in the descriptions of both models

(i.e. recognizing the learner as unique, expanding views on learning styles, promoting student

agency in curricular decisions). However, four articles also specified differences in terms of

how and when instructional adjustments were made for students. These articles claimed that,

while UDL seeks to anticipate student needs at the time of the curriculum design, DI adapts

12
 13

the instruction retrospectively in the planning process by using formative assessment to meet

the students’ individual needs. Additionally, four articles proposed combining the UDL and

DI models with other educational theories (i.e. Multiple Intelligences, Multicultural

Education) or teaching practices (i.e. co-teaching practice, ‘one-teach, one assist’). The

advantages of combining UDL and DI were specified in two articles. One found that when

applying the UDL guidelines as a one-size-fits-all approach, the learning needs of some

students were met, but at the same time it created learning barriers for others (Griful-

Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele, & Andries, 2017). In order to overcome these barriers,

Griful-Freixenet and colleagues (2017) suggested to implement DI in the instruction, because

students’ learning needs would be addressed individually and directly, rather than only

through the setting and curricular changes. Therefore, UDL weaknesses would be

compensated for when combined with DI. In the same line, Cha and Ahn (2014) suggested

that UDL could be more successful if DI were put into practice with different evaluation

methodologies that are customized to the students’ characteristics.

Two approaches on how to combine UDL and DI were found in the literature. Van

Kraayenoord (2007) described the first approach, perceiving UDL as a pedagogical model

that promoted equal access and similar academic rigour to all students by building in

accommodations. According to van Kraayenoord (2007), DI, in contrast, was perceived as a

teaching practice, which helped to accommodate the learning needs of some (struggling)

students. Van Kraayenoord (2007) perceived that DI ‘watered down’ the curriculum by

giving simpler work, or easier resources, to particular individuals. Within this understanding

of DI, the author advocates the application of UDL principles during the development of the

curriculum. Hence, the need for accommodation and modifications will be minimized.

Furthermore, modifications of the curriculum through DI will be necessary only for particular

13
 14

students. In that way, all students will get the same work with different levels of assistance

(van Kraayenoord, 2007).

The second approach suggests that UDL guidelines could help to apply DI and

provide practical guidelines for DI practice (Cha & Ahn, 2014; Stanford & Reeves, 2009).

Concretely, applying UDL could help to customize the criteria for teaching strategies,

materials and means of student expression, and also monitor student progress through on-

going evaluation. Stanford and Reeves (2009) concluded that by implementing DI through

UDL, teachers would experience many by-products of this unique learning environment.

However, they do not specify which ones.

Findings also reveal that almost half of the articles reporting complementarity refered

to a similar source in their arguments on the interrelationship between UDL and DI (Cha &

Ahn, 2014; Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017; Lee & Picanco, 2013; Van Garderen & Whittaker,

2006) which consisted of an electronic file named “Differentiated instruction and

implications for UDL implementation” written by the proponents of UDL (Hall, Strangman

& Meyer, 2003), in which they “highlight the ways that differentiated instruction is used to

implement UDL teaching methods” (p.11).

We conclude that an important number of articles in our sample (37%, n=10)

perceived a complementary relationship between UDL and DI and claimed that both need to

be combined in an integrated manner. However, almost none of these articles provided

evidence-based arguments to advocate these statements.

4.2.2. DI embedded within UDL

Table 3 summarizes the similarities, differences and findings of 13 articles that

perceived DI as being encompassed by the larger category of UDL. From the sample of 13

articles, five were found to be empirical studies while the rest where conceptual articles.

Concretely, these articles recognized that a curriculum based on UDL would automatically

14
 15

support teachers to differentiate their instruction and lead them to a “universal – rather than

specific – differentiation” (Selmer & Floyd, 2012, p.147; emphasis added). For example,

UDL as “the creation of differentiated learning experiences that minimize the need for

modifications for particular individuals” (Villa, Thousand, Nevin, & Liston, 2005, p.35;

emphasis added) or as an “inclusive model which advocates that the teacher designs and

implements differentiated instruction” (Arnett, 2010, p.560; emphasis added). Interestingly,

the majority of these articles did not report substantial similarities or differences between

UDL and DI, because they perceived DI as already being part of UDL.

When reporting the results, three empirical articles, aimed at measuring UDL in

different contexts, framed DI within the UDL model. For instance, Mavrou and Symeonidou

(2014) analysed whether the Greek–Cypriot national curriculum accommodated the UDL

principles. Results showed that a curriculum based on the UDL principles encouraged

teachers to differentiate their teaching with more confidence. This study concluded that the

national curriculum had failed to integrate the UDL principles to an extent that would enable

teachers to differentiate their teaching. The second study explored whether 45 candidates in a

special education teacher training program applied the UDL principles after UDL training

(Courey, Tappe, Siker, & LePage, 2013). The results showed that after the training, teachers

incorporated more differentiated options and varied teacher strategies based on UDL

principles into their lesson plans. Courey and colleagues (2013) concluded that UDL

supported teachers to provide flexible instructional materials and strategies that helped to

apply DI. The third empirical study investigated whether fifth- to12th-grade students’

perceptions towards the instructional environment differed in classrooms that employed UDL

(Abell, Jung, & Taylor, 2011). The results of this study showed that, in a UDL-aligned

instructional approach, senior-level students began to show more interest and engagement

with curriculum materials that differed given their own learning style, ability and interest.

15
 16

Thus, the authors perceived that UDL encompassed the DI principles of Tomlinson’s model

(2001).

Three other conceptual papers included some key features of the DI model of

Tomlinson (2001) when discussing the implementation of UDL. For example, Villa,

Thousand, Nevin, and Liston (2005) encouraged teachers to implement UDL by including

three distinct curriculum access points: ‘content’, ‘process’ and ‘product’. Similarly, Michael

and Trezek (2006) proposed tackling various ‘skill levels’, ‘learning style preferences’ and

‘interests’ from the outset. Furthermore, another study perceived UDL as an inclusive

framework, which included DI and other instructional practices, such as reciprocal teaching

and cooperative learning (Jiménez, Graf, & Rose, 2007).

Moreover, Katz (2013), the author of the Three Block Model (TBM), perceived DI as

a teaching practice encompassed within UDL. The TBM is a recent model based on

instructional pedagogies related to UDL. The TBM model consists of three blocks: (a) Block

1: Social and emotional learning: designed to develop compassionate learning communities;

(b) Block 2: Inclusive instructional practice: to address the diverse learning modes of

students; and (c) Block 3: System and structures: includes school-wide inclusive policy,

leadership, professional development and implementation, and funding requirements. In the

TBM Block 2, teachers are encouraged to differentiate learning opportunities when planning

and instructing in order to address the students’ varied learning modes. Therefore, they need

to incorporate evidence-based practices, such as Understanding by Design, Differentiated

Instruction, Curriculum Integration, and Inquiry and Assessment for Learning. Although it is

unclear how the TBM model as a whole aligns with the UDL guidelines, the model clearly

shows how DI is situated as a teaching practice in the larger framework of UDL.

4.3.3. DI and UDL, two independent models

16
 17

The third interrelationship (i.e. distinctive/incompatible) was found in four articles

which perceived DI and UDL as two independent models (Table 4). In their theoretical

framework, these articles presented both UDL and DI as two valuable models for meeting the

learning needs of students with disabilities. Three of them pinpointed the similarities between

both models related to the inclusive education paradigm (i.e. considering individual needs,

embracing students’ differences). However, important differences were also found, which

created a clear separation between the models and hindered their compatibility.

Regarding the differences between both models, two articles put less emphasis on the

proactive instructional design of DI in favour of a formative instructional design. UDL

involved planning instruction accessible to a diverse group of learners (Darrow, 2014; Franz,

Ivy, & McKissick, 2016). Thus, these articles considered DI as a reactive approach, while

UDL was considered proactive. Moreover, Franz and colleagues (2016) perceived DI as a

model that typically addressed the needs of struggling learners. In contrast, UDL addressed

the learning of all students, allowing teachers to consider both remedial and enrichment

opportunities.

Other perceived differences between UDL and DI were described in the study of

Baglieri, Valle, Connor, and Gallagher (2011). This study referred to DI as ‘differentiation’

and was defined as a process that assumes a baseline and then modifies ‘up’ or ‘down’ for

specific individuals. Thus, for these authors, DI often materialized as a ‘hierarchical tiering’

where “levelling emerges as deterministic tracking and ability grouping in the field of

practice” (p.273). Consequently, they perceived that DI would recreate the same undesirable

divisions that it pretends to eradicate (Baglieri et al., 2011). UDL, in contrast, would start

with a holistic conception of the potential for many possible learning experiences. Moreover,

according to Baglieri et al., (2011), UDL shifts the teachers’ focus on the benefits of an

individual to the benefit of the whole community. Articles reporting these incompatible

17
 18

differences (Baglieri et al., 2011; Darrow, 2014) between UDL and DI tended to refer to the

initial work of Tomlinson (1999, 2001), as well as to the UDL theory (Meyer & Rose, 1998;

Rose & Meyer, 2002).

Conversely, the study of Edyburn (2010) identified significant flaws of UDL when

compared with the DI model. This study brought to light the challenges that teachers

encounter when translating UDL into practice. Edyburn (2010) states that UDL does not

track the student’s individual performance and, consequently, fails with regard to enhancing

educational achievement. More emphasis on the variables that can be manipulated to

produce high performance, according to him, is necessary. Therefore, Edyburn (2010)

claimed that the teacher’s role is more appropriately associated with implementing DI than

UDL, because DI already includes some Universal Design products.

It can be concluded that, although UDL and DI share some recognizable theoretical

concepts, these articles also perceived notable differences. The first difference was that UDL

is a proactive approach, whereas DI is reactive. The second difference considered UDL as an

approach that creates access to similar academic rigour for all students, whereas DI assumes

first a baseline and then modifies ‘up’ or ‘down’ for particular individuals, typically

struggling learners. Because of these differences, authors that recognize UDL and DI as two

separate entities seem to share a similar goal but different (and even opposite) directions to

accomplish it. Therefore, from the authors’ point of view, any complementarity between the

models would be meaningless.

To sum up, three theoretical interrelationships between UDL and DI were found in

the literature. First, the complementary interrelationship, described in 37%(n=10) of the

articles, perceived complementarity between UDL and DI and, therefore, proposed to

combine them in an integrated way. Second, the embedded interrelationship, described in

48% (n=13) of the articles, perceived that DI was encompassed by the UDL framework.

18
 19

Third, the distinctive/incompatible interrelationship, described in 15% (n=4) of the articles,

perceived both UDL and DI as two separate entities with some similarities but at the same

time important, or even incompatible, differences.

5. Discussion

Inclusive education is a complex and multidimensional concept (Artiles & Dyson,

2005). In order to be effectively implemented, this concept needs to be incorporated within a

coherent pedagogical model that aims to reach all students (Banks et al., 2005; UNESCO,

2005). UDL and DI are both described as promising candidates, not only in scientific

literature (Stegemann, 2016; UNESCO, 2004, 2016) but also by law, for instance in the

USA, with the educational law Higher Education Opportunity Act from 2008. However,

confusion among practitioners, policy makers and researchers about the two models persists,

especially on how they exactly relate to each other. Therefore, a systematic search was

carried out to identify and clarify all specific types of interrelationships between both

pedagogical models that are described in the literature.

Importantly, most of the descriptions of the interrelationships found lacked empirical

evidence, tended to rely solely on the authors’ perceptions and/or used low-quality

documents to support their ideas. In spite of this, three theoretical interrelationships between

the UDL and DI models could be identified: complementarity, embedded and

distinctive/incompatible. Although speculative, one explanation for these findings could be

found in previous research on comparison processes (e.g. Herr, Sherman, & Fazio, 1983;

Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In this line, it might be that when authors perceived an initial

discrepancy, they tended to look for more evidence (i.e. dissimilarity testing) to substantiate

their theory of discrepancy. Previous research found that dissimilarity testing involves a

selective search for evidence that leads to contrast (Mussweiler, 2003). We documented that

this phenomenon was especially relevant in the third interrelationship, where the dissimilarity

19
 20

testing increased the magnitude of the perceived differences between UDL and DI. In

contrast, engaging in similarity or complementarity testing selectively generated knowledge

indicating that both models were similar or complementary. These findings are discussed in

detail below.

Regarding the first type of interrelationship (i.e. complementary), authors engaged in

examining the complementarity between both constructs by devaluating either DI or UDL

into an inferior status, which differed from how it was originally described by the authors.

For example, some articles perceived DI as a set of practices aimed to help in differentiating

lessons (i.e. changing the curriculum content, modifying tasks), whereas UDL was perceived

as an independent pedagogical model or framework (e.g. Tobin, 2006; van Kraayenoord,

2007). Conversely, other articles reporting complementarity described DI as a proactive

teaching approach, whereas UDL was perceived as a set of practical guidelines to be used in

order to implement DI (e.g. Cha & Ahn, 2014; Stanford & Revees, 2009).

Regarding the second type of interrelationship (i.e. embedded), articles that perceived

DI as encompassed by UDL tended to define DI as a practice for differentiating the

curriculum. UDL, in contrast, was then considered by the same articles as a paradigm or

philosophy. A possible explanation of this narrow interpretation of DI may be due to the

literal and prevalent use of the verb ‘differentiation’ in the UDL guidelines (CAST, 2011a,

2014). This tendency can be seen in four different UDL guidelines (i.e. Guidelines 5, 6, 8, 9).

For example, Guideline 5 consists of “providing differentiated models to emulate”,

“providing differentiated mentors” and “providing differentiated feedback” and Guideline 6

consists of “providing differentiated models of self-assessment strategies”. Similarly,

previous empirical research on DI has the tendency to use the concept DI interchangeably for,

among others, ‘curriculum differentiation’ (Tieso, 2005) or ‘differentiation’ (Smit &

Humpert, 2012). It can be concluded that articles that perceived DI as part of UDL

20
 21

interpreted DI literally as ‘curriculum differentiation’, instead of a pedagogical approach or

philosophy, in the way the original author intended it to be (Tomlinson, 2005a, 2014).

Articles reporting on the third type of interrelationship (i.e. distinctive/incompatible)

tended to refer to the initial work of Tomlinson (1999, 2001) when reporting incompatible

differences between UDL and DI, and ignored the most recent adaptations to both models.

One potential reason for this could be that the initial theories provide a much clearer

distinction between UDL and DI in line with their distinct origins (i.e. students with

disabilities vs. gifted education) and particular terminology, which offers a more logical

explanation of the differences, similarities and interrelationship between UDL and DI.

This review has also shown that for both UDL (from 2008 onwards) (CAST, 2008)

and DI (from 2005 onwards) (Tomlinson, 2005a), authors tend to ignore most recent

theoretical developments when contrasting both pedagogical models. This was true for all

interrelationships, but was especially pronounced in the third type, which consisted of

emphasizing the incompatibility of the models. A likely explanation for this finding is the

potential difficulty that researchers confront when comparing recent models, especially due

to their similar and overlapping evolution. As suggested by Opertti and colleagues (2014),

this evolution may be shaped by the foundations, rationale, content, and implications of the

four evolving and intertwining core approaches, regarding how inclusive education policies

and practices are understood (i.e. from targeting specific groups of students to achieving

quality education for all). Concretely, UDL has been evolving into a more flexible model

with customizable options, willing to tackle individual needs. At the same time, DI has been

evolving towards a proactive whole-classroom design, which anticipates and offers different

avenues for all students towards the same learning goals. Due to these concurrent evolutions

towards similar end goals, conceptual differences between UDL’s and DI’s recent theories

are less perceivable. Similarities, on the other hand, have become more extensive.

21
 22

Consequently, we could wonder if in the current day and age, UDL and DI are possibly

referring to the same content and concepts, merely using different terminology, with perhaps

only slightly different emphases.

To sum up, this study has identified three conceptual interpretations of the

interrelationships between UDL and DI in the literature (i.e. complementary, embedded and

distinctive/incompatible) and has clarified each of them. An important conclusion from our

review is that the interrelationships between UDL and DI have been discussed in detail in few

peer-review articles (n=27) and only on a theoretical level. Considering the fact that a

complete lack of empirical testing of potential UDL and DI interrelationships was revealed, a

necessary and long overdue next step is to scientifically test both models and tap directly into

the three interrelationships. More specifically, such studies should try to operationalize each

of the defining constructs and deduce specific hypotheses for each model using the most

recent theoretical advancements. This could be done, for example, by using self-report

surveys in order to measure teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices based on both DI

and UDL. Subsequently, the discriminant and convergent validity of each construct needs to

be ascertained. Foremost, shared and distinct latent constructs between UDL and DI models

need to be explored and contrasted empirically to see if different constructs remain or not,

and if so, determine the degree and direction of the association. If analyses show that DI is

part of UDL by demonstrating that all constructs of the embedded model correlate very

strongly with the larger model but not the opposite, then conceptual redundancies need to be

identified along with decisions to favour certain constructs and terms over others (Leaper,

2011). However, if findings indicate that both models are complementary approaches by each

addressing certain constructs in more depth than the other model does, then future studies

could put efforts in bridging both theories into one by using the strongest aspects of each

(Leaper, 2011). However, if empirical testing shows clear discriminant validity for all of the

22
 23

UDL and DI constructs, then they should remain clearly separate. In any case, a more

grounded notion of the UDL and DI interrelationship will be achieved and hence, we will be

able to advocate towards the most complete interpretation of the interrelationship between

both models.

6. Limitations

The articles (n= 27) included in this review explicitly related UDL and DI as a focus

of the research. However, other articles examining the UDL and DI frameworks may not

have been included if the study was not peer-reviewed in English language, or if the authors

did not explicitly contrast both UDL and DI and/or discuss their interrelationship, or

reference both UDL and DI by citing an author or study. Moreover, literature published after

mid-2017 has not been included in our review. Although all of the 27 articles supported one

of three types of possible interrelationships between UDL and DI, the majority of these

results derive from articles that lacked empirical evidence, solely relying on the authors’

perceptions. Moreover, most of the included articles cited several different sources when

contrasting the UDL and DI frameworks, therefore, it was not possible to know exactly

which sources and/or which particular theoretical elements they considered and which they

omitted when reporting the interrelationship. Finally, findings from this study do not allow to

conclude that the high percentage of the embedded interrelationship of DI within UDL

(described in 48% of the articles) is due to the higher value of UDL from a scientific

perspective or due to the better public relation strategies and the largest market share of UDL

above DI.

7. Conclusions

23
 24

The goal of this study was to identify and clarify the different types of

interrelationships between the UDL and DI models described in the scientific literature to

date. We can conclude that, the three types of interrelationships found have been discussed in

relatively few peer-review articles and only on a theoretical level. Based on this review, it is

time to move forward from theoretical discourses into empirical ones. In this way, an

evidence-based notion on UDL and DI interrelationships will be achieved and hence, a step

forward towards stronger theory-development in the field of inclusive education research.

Formatting of funding sources

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,

commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

24
 25

References

Acquah, E. O., Tandon, M., & Lempinen, S. (2016). Teacher diversity awareness in the
context of changing demographics. European Educational Research Journal, 15(2),
218-235. doi: 10.1177/1474904115611676

*Abell, M. M., Jung, E., & Taylor, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of classroom
instructional environments in the context of ‘universal design for learning’. Learning
Environments Research, 14(2), 171-185. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9090-2

Adebayo, A. S., & Shumba, C. B. (2014). An assessment of the implementation of

differentiated instruction in primary schools, Kabwe district, Zambia. European
Scientific Journal, 10(7). doi:10.19044/esj.2014.v10n7p%25p

American Psychological Association (APA). (2017, June 12) Types of articles accepted.
Retreived from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/bar/article-types.aspx

*Arnett, K. (2010). Scaffolding inclusion in a grade 8 core French classroom: An exploratory

case study. Canadian modern language review, 66(4), 557-582.
doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.4.557

Artiles, A. J., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalization age: The promise
of comparative cultural historical analysis. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing
inclusive education (pp. 37–62). London: Routledge.

Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2007). Beyond convictions: Interrogating culture, history,
and power in inclusive education. Journal of Language Arts, 84(4), 351–358.

*Ashman, A. (2010). Modelling inclusive practices in postgraduate tertiary education

courses. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 667-680.
doi:10.1080/13603111003778429

25
 26

*Baglieri, S., Valle, J. W., Connor, D. J., & Gallagher, D. J. (2011). Disability studies in
education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special
Education, 32(4), 267-278. doi: 10.1177/0741932510362200

Ball, A., & Tyson, C. (2011). Studying diversity in teacher education. New York, NY:
Rowman & Littlefield.

Banks, J. A. (2007). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In Multicultural

education: Issues and perspectives, ed. J.A. Banks and C.A. McGee Banks, 3–32.
Danvers, MA: John Wiley and Sons.

Banks, J., M. Cochran-Smith, L. Moll, A. Richert, K. Zeichner, P. LePage, L. Darling-

Hammond, H. Duffy, & M. McDonald. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In
Preparing teachers for a changing world. What teachers should learn and be able to
do, ed. L. Darling-Hammond and J. Bransford (pp.232–74). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting
students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4),
8-15.

*Beasley, J. G., & Beck, D. E. (2017). Defining differentiation in cyber schools: what online
teachers Say. TechTrends, 61(6), 550-559. doi:10.1007/s11528-017-0189-x

Bennett, M. (2016). The Convergence into an Ideal Thought: Critical Thinking and
Metacognition. Childhood Education, 92(1), 75-76.

Borders, C., Jones Bock, S., & Michalak, N. (2012). Chapter 9 Differentiated instruction for
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. In F. E. Obiakor & J. P. Bakken
(Eds.), Behavioral disorders: Identification, assessment, and instruction of students
with EBD (pp. 203-219). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing.

26
 27

CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). (2008). Universal design for learning
guidelines version 1.0. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Universal Design for
Learning. Retrieved from
http://udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v1-
0/udlg_graphicorganizer_v1-0.pdf

CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). (2009). Universal design for learning
guidelines (Version 1.0). Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/udl/index.html

CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). (2011a). Universal design for learning
guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Universal Design for
Learning.

CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). (2011b). About UDL. Retrieved from
http://www.cast.org/publications/UDLguidelines/version1.html

CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). (2012a). About Universal Design for
Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/udl/

CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). (2012b). About UDL: What is Meant by the
Term Curriculum?. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlcurriculum

CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). (2014). What is universal design for
learning?. Wakefield, Massachusetts: Center for Applied Special Technology.
Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl

Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved from
http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm/

*Cha, H. J., & Ahn, M. L. (2014). Development of design guidelines for tools to promote
differentiated instruction in classroom teaching. Asia Pacific Education Review,
15(4), 511-523. doi:10.1007/s12564-014-9337-6

27
 28

Cooper, H. (2017) Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach (5th

ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Universal design for learning: A guide for
teachers and education professionals. New York: Prentice Hall.

Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., …Vanderheiden,
G. (1997). Principles of universal design. Raleigh: North Carolina State University,
Center for Universal Design.

*Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. W. (2015). A socio-cultural reframing of science and dis/ability in
education: past problems, current concerns, and future possibilities. Cultural Studies
of Science Education, 10(4), 1103-1122. doi: 10.1007/s11422-015-9712-6

* Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2013). Improved lesson planning with
universal design for learning (UDL). Teacher education and special education, 36(1),
7-27. doi:10.1177/0888406412446178

*Darrow, A. A. (2014). Differentiated instruction for students with disabilities: Using DI in

the music classroom. General Music Today, 28(2), 29-32.
doi:10.1177/1048371314554279

Edyburn, D. L. (2006). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on

evidence for using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning &
Leading with Technology, 34(1), 20-23. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ779811.pdf

* Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it?
Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33-41. doi:10.1177/073194871003300103

European Commission (2017). Preparing teachers for diversity. The role of Initial Teacher
education. Brussels: European Union.

28
 29

Flower, J., Stapleton, G., & Rodgers, P. (2014). On the drawability of 3D Venn and Euler
diagrams. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 25(3), 186-209.
doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2013.08.009

*Franz, D. P., Ivy, J., & McKissick, B. R. (2016). Equity and access: All students are
mathematical problem solvers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(2), 73-78. doi:10.1080/00098655.2016.1165167

* Freytag, C. E. (2008). Reimagining excellence in inclusive education: Transforming edict

to ethic. Journal of Education and Christian Belief, 12(2), 129-143.
doi:10.1177/205699710801200205

*Friend, M., & Pope, K. L. (2005). Creating schools in which all students can succeed.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(2), 56-61. doi:10.1080/00228958.2005.10532045

Gordon, D., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and
practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.

*Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Verstichele, M., & Andries, C. (2017). Higher education
students with disabilities speaking out: perceived barriers and opportunities of the
Universal Design for Learning framework. Disability & Society, 32(10), 1627-1649.
doi:10.1080/09687599.2017.1365695

Haager, D., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction in inclusive classrooms.

Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal design for learning in the
classroom: Practical applications. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated Instruction and Implications for
UDL Implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum.

29
 30

Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., & Fazio, R. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming:
Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of experimental social psychology, 19(4),
323-340. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(83)90026-4

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. 2008. 110-315, 122 U.S.C. § 3078.

Hirschheim, R. (2008). Some guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(8), 3.

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the
general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children,
35(2), 8–17.

Howard, J. B. (2003). Universal design for learning: An essential concept for teacher
education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(4), 113-118.
doi:10.1080/10402454.2003.10784474

Izzo, M. V. (2012). Universal design for learning: enhancing achievement of students with
disabilities. Procedia computer science,14, 343-350. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.039

*Jiménez, T. C., Graf, V. L., & Rose, E. (2007). Gaining access to general education: The
promise of universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 41-54.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ796250.pdf

Kaderavek, J. N. (2009). Perspectives from the field of early childhood special education.
Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 40(4), 403-405.
doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/08-0019

Katz, J. (2012). Teaching to Diversity: The Three-Block Model of Universal Design for
Learning. Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press.

*Katz, J. (2013). The three block model of universal design for learning (UDL): Engaging
students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1008728.pdf

30
 31

Keeler, C. G., & Horney, M. (2007). Online course designs: Are special needs being met?.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 61-75.
doi:10.1080/08923640701298985

Kuo, N. C. (2015). Understanding the philosophical foundations of disabilities to maximize

the potential of response to intervention. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(7),
647-660. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2014.905763

Leaper, C. (2011). More similarities than differences in contemporary theories of social

development? A plea for theory bridging. In J. B. Benson (Ed.), Advances in child
development and behaviour (pp. 337–378). San Diego: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-
12-386491-8.00009-8.

*Lee, C., & Picanco, K. E. (2013). Accommodating diversity by analyzing practices of

teaching (ADAPT). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(2), 132-144.
doi:10.1177/0888406413483327

Lipsky, D. K. (2005). Are we there yet?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 156-158.

Lynch, S. A., & Warner, L. (2008). Creating lesson plans for all learners. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 45(1), 10-15. doi:10.1080/00228958.2008.10516525

*Mavrou, K., & Symeonidou, S. (2014). Employing the principles of universal design for
learning to deconstruct the greek-cypriot new national curriculum. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(9), 918-933. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.859308

Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Kelley, K. R., Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Kohler, P. D., &
Kortering, L. J. (2009). Linking transition assessment and postsecondary goals: Key
elements in the secondary transition planning process. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 42(2), 44-51. doi:10.1177/004005990904200205

31
 32

McGuire, J. M., S. S. Scott, & S. F. Shaw. (2006). Universal design and its applications in
educational environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 166-175.
doi:10.1177/07419325060270030501

*Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for
learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 21-30.
doi:10.3200/PSFL.52.2.21-30

Messiou, K. (2017). Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a

rethink?. International journal of inclusive education, 21(2), 146-159.
doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1223184

Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (1998). Learning to read in the computer age. Cambridge, MA:
Brookline Books.

Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational
Leadership, 58(3), 39-43.

Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and
disability in educational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The
universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp.
13-35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press

*Michael, M. G., & Trezek, B. J. (2006). Universal design and multiple literacies: Creating
access and ownership for students with disabilities. Theory into practice, 45(4), 311-
318. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4504_4

Miller, P. (2002). Theories of developmental psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

Moritz, C., & Faith, D. P. (1998). Comparative phylogeography and the identification of
genetically divergent areas for conservation. Molecular ecology, 7(4), 419-429.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00317.x

32
 33

Morningstar, M. E., Shogren, K. A., Lee, H., & Born, K. (2015). Preliminary lessons about
supporting participation and learning in inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice
for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(3), 192-210. doi:10.1177/1540796915594158

Mulrine, C. F., & Flores-Marti, I. (2014). Practical Strategies for Teaching Students with
Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in General Physical Education Classrooms.
Strategies, 27(1), 26-31. doi:10.1080/08924562.2014.859004

Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and

consequences. Psychological review, 110(3), 472. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472

National Center On Universal Design for Learning (2012). Universal Design for Learning
(UDL): Initiatives on the Move. National Center on UDL. Retrieved from
http://www.udlcenter.org/sites/udlcenter.org/files/UDL_Initiatives_on_the_Move_Ma
y_2012.pdf

Navarro, S., Zervas, P., Gesa, R., & Sampson, D. (2016). Developing teachers' competences
for designing inclusive learning experiences. Educational Technology and Society,
19(1), 17-27. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1768612558?pq-
origsite=gscholar

Nikolaraizi, M., Vekiri, I., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2013). Investigating deaf students’ use of
visual multimedia resources in reading comprehension. American annals of the deaf,
157(5), 458-474.

Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

OECD (2010). Educating teachers for diversity: Meeting the challenge. OECD: Paris.

OECD (2018). Teaching for the future: Effective Classrooms Practices to Transform
Education. OECD: Paris.

33
 34

Okolo, C. M., Englert, C. S., Bouck, E. C., Heutsche, A., & Wang, H. (2011). The virtual
history museum: Learning US history in diverse eighth grade classrooms. Remedial
and Special Education, 32(5), 417-428. doi:10.1177/0741932510362241

Opertti, R., Walker, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Inclusive education: From targeting groups and
schools to achieving quality education as the core of EFA. In L. Florian (Ed.), The
SAGE handbook of special education (2nd Revised Edition). London: SAGE.

O'Rourke, J., Main, S., & Ellis, M. (2013). So the kids are busy, what now? Teacher
perceptions of the use of hand-held game consoles in West Australian primary
classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5).

Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for
student access. OSEP Topical Brief. Reston, Virginia: Council for Exceptional
Children.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical
guide. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for
learning. Remedial and special education, 22(4), 197-203.

Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., ... & Waldrip, B. (2013).
Personalised learning: Lessons to be learnt. British Educational Research Journal,
39(4), 654-676. doi:10.1080/01411926.2012.669747

Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on universal design
educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 153-166.
doi:10.1177/0741932513518980

Reilly, E., & Migyanka, J. (2016). Moving all students towards mathematical success:
Teachers’ perceptions of learning and implementing Differentiating Instruction.
Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(1), 16-28. Retrieved from
http://educationforatoz.com/images/Reilly_2016.pdf

34
 35

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2000a). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 15(1), 67-70.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2000b). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and
disability in educational reform. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of
Education Office of Special Education Technology. Washington, DC: USDOE.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal
Design for Learning. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom:
Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.

Russell, M., Hoffmann, T., & Higgins, J. (2009). Meeting the needs of all students: A
universal design approach to computer-based testing. Innovate: Journal of online
education, 5(4).

*Selmer, S. J., & Floyd, K. (2012). UDL for geometric length measurement. Teaching
Children's Mathematics, 19(3), 146-151. doi:10.5951/teacchilmath.19.3.0146

Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new
paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special
Education, 24(6), 369-379.

Smessaert, H., & Demey, L. (2014). Logical and geometrical complementarities between
Aristotelian diagrams. In International Conference on Theory and Application of
Diagrams (pp. 246-260). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

35
 36

Smit, R., & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(8), 1152-1162. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.003

Southan, C., Várkonyi, P., & Muresan, S. (2007). Complementarity between public and
commercial databases: new opportunities in medicinal chemistry informatics. Current
Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 7(15), 1502-1508. doi:10.2174/156802607782194761

*Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2009). Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction,
retrofit framework, and universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children
Plus, 5(6), 1-9. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967757.pdf

Stapleton, G., Howse, J., & Taylor, J. (2003). A constraint diagram reasoning system. In
Proceedings of International Conference on Visual Languages and Computing, pp.
263-270.

Stegemann, K. C. (2016). Learning disabilities in Canada. Learning Disabilities: A

Contemporary Journal, 14(1), 53-62. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-58418-005

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), (2005). Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream?. Washington,

DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2007). Differentiating instruction:

Collaborative planning and teaching for universally designed learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on

achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 60-89.
doi:10.1177/016235320502900104

*Tobin, R. (2006). Five ways to facilitate the teacher assistant's work in the classroom.
Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2(6), 1-10. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967110.pdf

36
 37

*Tobin, R. (2008). Conundrums in the differentiated literacy classroom. Reading

Improvement, 45(4), 159-170.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all

learners. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000a). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC

Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, University of Illinois.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000b). Differentiated instruction: Can it work?. The Education Digest,

65(5), 25.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000c). Reconcilable differences: Standards-based teaching and

differentiation. Educational leadership, 58(1), 6-13.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.

Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003a). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6–11.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003b). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies

and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003c). Differentiating instruction for academic diversity. In J. M. Cooper

(Ed.), Classroom teaching skills (7th ed., pp. 149–180). Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2004a). The Möbius effect: Addressing learner variance in schools.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 516–524.

Tomlinson, C. (2004b). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd

ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

37
 38

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005a). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice?. Theory

into practice, 44(3), 262-269. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4403_11

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005b). Differentiated instruction as a way to achieve equity and

excellence in today’s schools, building inclusive schools: A search for solutions. In
Conference Report Canadian Teachers’ Federation Conference (pp. 19-21).

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005c). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Fulfilling the promise of differentiation. Retrieved from

http://www.caroltomlinson.com/

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all

learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse

classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., ...
& Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness,
interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of
literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119-145.
doi:10.1177/016235320302700203

Tomlinson, C. A, Callahan, C., & Lelli, K. (1997). Challenging expectations: Case studies of
high-potential, culturally diverse young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(2), 5-17.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for
differentiating curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

38
 39

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated

Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction &

understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

UNESCO (2004). Changing teaching practices: using curriculum differentiation to respond

to students' diversity. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring assess to education for all. Paris:
UNESCO.

UNESCO (2015). EFA Global Monitoring Report: Education for All 2000–2015:
Achievements and Challenges. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2016). Learning for All: Guidelines on the Inclusion of Learners with Disabilities
in Open and Distance Learning. Paris: UNESCO.

Urbach, N., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2009). The state of research on information systems
success. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(4), 315-325.
doi:10.1007/s12599-009-0059-y

Utley, B. L. (2006). Effects of situated learning on knowledge gain of instructional strategies

by students in a graduate level course. Teacher education and special education,
29(1), 69-82. doi:10.1177/088840640602900108

Van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., Jackson, C., & Hampton, D. (2009). Supporting the
collaboration of special educators and general educators to teach students who

39
 40

struggle with mathematics: An overview of the research. Psychology in the Schools,

46, 56-77. doi:10.1002/pits.20354

*Van Garderen, D., & Whittaker, C. (2006). Planning differentiated, multicultural instruction
for secondary inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 12-21.
doi:10.1177/004005990603800302

*van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2007). School and classroom practices in inclusive education in

Australia. Childhood education, 83(6), 390-394.
doi:10.1080/00094056.2007.10522957

*Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A., & Liston, A. (2005). Successful inclusive practices
in middle and secondary schools. American Secondary Education, 33(3), 33-50.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41064553

Vitelli, E. M. (2015). Universal design for learning: Are we teaching it to preservice general
education teachers?. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(3), 166-178.
doi:10.1177/0162643415618931

Watt, S., Vajoczki, S., Voros, G., Vine, M. M., Fenton, N., & Tarkowski, J. (2014). Lecture
Capture: An Effective Tool for Universal Instructional Design?. Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, 44(2), 1-29.

Westwood, P. (2001). Differentiation as a strategy for inclusive classroom practice: Some

difficulties identified. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 6(1), 5-11.
doi:10.1080/19404150109546651

Wlodarczyk, K. A., Somma, M., Bennett, S., & Gallagher, L. (2015). Moving toward
inclusion: Inclusion coaches' reflections and discussions in supporting educators in
practice. Exceptionality Education International, 25(3), 55-73. Retrieved from
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol25/iss3/4

40
 41

Zascavage, V., & Winterman, K. G. (2009). What middle school educators should know
about assistive technology and universal design for learning. Middle School Journal,
40(4), 46-52. doi:10.1080/00940771.2009.11461681

41
 42

Appendix A: Tables and Figures

Table 1: Characteristics of the articles analysed.

A) Empirical articles: aimed to gain new knowledge on a topic based on facts, experiment,
or systematic observation, rather than theory or philosophical principle.

First author Methodological features of the study

(year)

Arnett (2010) Research design: qualitative

Design: longitudinal: 2 waves; one before and one after the observation
period
Research methods: interview and classroom observations
Sample: 1 low-secondary school teacher
Country of origin: Canada
Study purpose: explore teacher’s experiences in meeting the various
learner needs in her classroom

Abell, Jung & Research design: quantitative

Taylor (2011) Design: longitudinal: cross-sectional
Research methods: survey
Sample: 867 students in Grades 5–12
Country of origin: USA
Study purpose: to examine students’ perception toward their instructional
environment in classrooms exploring UDL

Courey, Tappe, Research design: quantitative

Siker & Design: longitudinal: 2 waves; beginning and end of one semester
LePage (2012) Research methods: scale
Sample: 45 pre-service teachers
Country of origin: USA
Study purpose: to explore if participating in a 3-hour instructional
module on UDL pre-service teachers increased the use of UDL
principles in designing lesson plans

Katz (2013) Research design: quantitative

Design: longitudinal: 2 waves; prior to intervention and during the
intervention
Research methods: survey
Sample: 631 students from Grades 1–12
Country of origin: Canada
Study purpose: demonstrate positive outcomes of the practices included
in the Three-Block Model of UDL individually, for instance,
differentiating instruction

Mavrou & Research design: qualitative

Symeonidou Design: cross-sectional
(2014) Research methods: content analysis
Country of origin: Cyprus
Study purpose: explore the extent to which the Greek–Cypriot
curriculum applied the principles of UDL in its reconstruction

42
 43

Cha & Research design: qualitative

Ahn (2014) Design: cross-sectional
Research methods: interview
Sample: 4 primary teachers and 5 community members
Country of origin: South Korea
Study focus: development of design guidelines for tools to promote
differentiated instruction in classroom teaching

Beasley & Beck Research design: qualitative

(2017) Design: cross-sectional
Research methods: open-ended questions survey
Sample: 118 teachers from cyber schools
Country of origin: USA
Study focus: how teachers defined differentiation in their online
classroom and how they adjusted for student needs

Griful-Freixenet, Research design: qualitative

Struyven, Design: cross-sectional
Verstichele & Research methods: interview
Andries (2017) Sample: 10 higher education students with disabilities
Country of origin: Belgium
Study purpose: to explore whether UDL addresses the learning needs of
students with disabilities effectively

B) Conceptual articles: primarily based on theory, ideas, frameworks, or speculation.

First author
(year) Method

Villa, Country of origin: USA

Thousand, Article purpose: describe successful inclusive practices in middle and
Nevin & Liston secondary schools
(2005)

Friend & Pope Country of origin: USA

(2005) Article purpose: reflect on how to create schools in which all students
can succeed

Tobin (2006) Country of origin: Canada

Article purpose: reflect on ways to facilitate the teacher assistant’s work
in an inclusive classroom

Van Garderen & Country of origin: USA

Whittaker (2006) Article purpose: reflect on differentiated planning and multicultural
instruction for secondary inclusive classrooms

Michael & Trezek Country of origin: USA

(2006) Article purpose: explore the concept of universal design and multiple
literacies for students with disabilities

43
44

44
 45

van Country of origin: Australia

Kraayenoord Article purpose: reflect on school and classroom practices in inclusive
(2007) education in Australia

Jiménez, Graf Country of origin: USA

& Rose (2007) Article purpose: reflect on UDL

Tobin (2008) Country of origin: Canada

Article purpose: reflect on the foundational conundrums in the
differentiated literacy classroom

Freytag (2008) Country of origin: USA

Article purpose: reflect on inclusive education paradigm in the US

Meo (2008) Country of origin: USA

Article purpose: provides an overwiew of how to apply UDL to a high
school reading comprehension program

Stanford & Country of origin: USA

Reeves (2009) Article purpose: reflect on how to use Differentiated Instruction, retrofit
framework and Universal Design for learning

Ashman (2010) Country of origin: Australia

Article purpose: reflect on modelling inclusive practices in postgraduate
tertiary education courses

Edyburn (2010) Country of origin: USA

Article purpose: reflect on ten propositions for new directions for the
second decade of UDL

Baglieri, Valle, Country of origin: USA

Connor & Article purpose: reflect on different perspectives on disability in
Gallagher (2011) education

Selmer & Country of origin: USA

Floyd (2012) Article purpose: reflect on the use of UDL for geometric lenght
measurament in inclusive preschool classrooms

Lee & Country of origin: USA

Picanco Article purpose: examine inclusive practices of teaching in K-12 settings
(2013)

Darrow (2014) Country of origin: USA

Article purpose: reflect on how to use differentiated instruction for
students with disabilities in the music classroom

Connor & Country: USA

Valle (2015) Article purpose: reflection on the value of a socio-cultural reframing of
45
 46

s cience and dis/ability in education.

46
 47

Franz, Ivy & Country of origin: USA

McKissick (2016) Article purpose: highlight the inherent problem solving strengths that
students with learning disabilities possess

47
 48

Table 2
Descriptive features and outcomes for peer-reviewed studies that reported a complementarity
interrelationship between UDL and DI models

UDL
Study DI model Interrelationship
model Similarities Differences Implementation
between UDL & DI

Beasley & NA
Beck Tomlinson Rose & Complementarity: “In fact, both UDL “While DI places an
(2017) (2001; Meyer “In practice, the two and differentiation emphasis on formative
2014) (2002) approaches complement share the same goal assessment to inform
each other well in a of helping children constant adaptation of
Tomlinson school” (p.552) to learn as much and instruction to meet all
et al., as deeply as student needs, UDL
(2003) possible” (p.552) builds a curriculum
that anticipates student
“Both also agree on needs and incorporates
the customization of modifications into the
curriculum to fit all curriculum from the
kinds of students, outset”. (p.552)
including the
multiple differing “The two methods
ways in which diverge in terms of
children learn” how they seek to
(p.552) accomplish the
common goal” (p.552)

Cha & Ahn Tomlinson Rose & Complementarity: “To address issues NA “The learning
(2014) (1999; Meyer “UDL theory also of diversity, studies support through the
2000a; (2002) suggests that it is more about differentiated UDL framework can
2001; successful when DI is put instruction (DI) help to implement
2003a) CAST into practice with (Tomlinson 2001) DI where teachers
(2011a) different evaluation and universal design can customize the
methodologies for learning (UDL) criteria for teaching
Hall, customized to students’ (Rose et al. 2006) strategies, materials
Strangma characteristics” (p.521) have also and means of
n& expanded views on student expression,
Meyer learning styles by monitoring student
(2003) calling for greater progress through
inclusiveness” ongoing evaluation”
(p.511) (p.513)

Connor & Tomlinson Basham, Complementarity: NA NA NA

Valle (2001; & “Note that differentiation is
(2015) 2014) Marino intended to benefit all
(2013) students—not just those
with dis/abilities—and is
completely compatible
with Universal Design for
Learning” (p. 1118).

Freytag Tomlinson Hitchcoc Complementarity: NA “While UDL seeks to NA

(2008) (2001) k, Meyer, “By incorporating UDL make a common
Rose, & and DI principles, students learning experience
Jackson with a diverse range of accessible to all
(2002) learning needs can be students, differentiated
served effectively in instruction (DI) seeks
inclusive classrooms” to provide students
(p.138) with multiple ways of
experiencing diverse
bodies of knowledge”
(p.138)

48
 49

Griful- Tomlinson Rose & Complementarity: “Both UDL and DI NA NA

Freixenet, (1999) Meyer “Complementary nature recognize the learner
Struyven, (2002) between UDL and DI that as unique, bring
Verstichele Tomlinson could potentially bring elements of choice
& Andries & McTighe CAST more flexibility and to the curricula, set
(2017) (2006) (2011a) accessibility to the lesson” clear goals and
(p.1644) match assessment to
Hall, instruction” (p.1631)
Strangma “Weaknesses of UDL
n& arising from the
Meyer perceptions of the students
(2003) with disabilities could be
compensated for when
combined with DI”
(p.1645)

Lee & Tomlinson Hall, Complementarity: “Differentiated NA NA

Picanco (2004b) Meyer, & “Differentiated instruction, instruction, co-
(2013) Rose UDL, and co-teaching can teaching, and the
Tomlinson (2012) be used effectively in universal design for
& McTighe concert with planning for learning (UDL) as a
(2006) the phases of learning to way to meet the
create optimal learning needs of diverse
experiences for students” learners” (p.132)
(p.143)

Stanford & Tomlinson, Hitchcoc Complementarity: NA NA “DI can be

Reeves Callahan & k, Meyer, “When differentiating implemented
(2009) Lelli Rose & through UDL teachers through Retrofitting
(1997) Jackson experience many bi- the curriculum or
(2002) products of this unique Universally
Tomlinson learning environment” Designing the
(2005b) Rose & (p.7) curriculum for
Meyer learning” (p.2)
Tomlinson (2006)
& McTighe “Retrofitting is often
(2006) seen as a first step to
meeting the needs of
a learner who is not
reaching her full
potential for
success. Retrofitting
is usually used
before the UDL
approach is fully
embraced by the
school culture. It is
for teachers in the
beginning stages of
attempting to
differentiate
instruction” (p.4)

Tobin Tomlinson Orkwis Complementarity: NA NA NA

(2006) (1999) & “Teachers can do this by
McLane monitoring their own
(1998) discourse and interaction,
by ensuring that the
teacher assistants’ efforts
are dispatched to the
students with disabilities in
discreet and respectful
ways, by differentiating
instruction and adopting
universal design, and by
regularly reviewing their
action plans” (p. 7)

49
 50

van Westwood McGuire, Complementarity: “Teachers’ “The main difference “It is suggested that
Kraayenoor (2001) Scott & “The use of both types of pedagogical between differentiated teachers first
d (2007) Shaw practices is supported, practices of instruction and develop curricula,
(2006) because they address issues differentiated Universal Design for teaching, and
of access to and support of instruction and Learning lies in the learning experiences
learning in complementary Universal Design for fact that differentiated and activities based
ways” (p.394) Learning that are instruction refers to on Universal Design
consistent with the making of changes for Learning
delivering inclusive to lessons, outcomes, principles, in order
education” (p. 390) activities, and to minimize the
assessment tasks, after need for
“The practices of the fact-that is, accommodations
differentiated through the use of and modifications.
instruction and accommodations and However,
inclusive modifications modification of the
pedagogies, based retrospectively in the curricula,
on Universal Design planning process or experiences, and
for Learning during the delivery of activities through
principles, are two instruction. In contrast, the use of
types of practices from the outset, differentiated
that are used in Universal Design for instruction may still
Australian Learning involves the be necessary for
classrooms to conscious and some students”
support the deliberate creation of (p.393)
achievement of lessons and outcomes
diverse students’ that allow all students
learning outcomes” access to and
(p. 394) participation in the
same curricula”
“The use of both (p.392)
types of practices is
supported, because
they address issues
of access to and
support of learning
in complementary
ways” (p.394)

“However, there is a
need to provide
evidence of the joint
and separate
contributions of the
practices of
inclusive pedagogies
based on Universal
Design
for Learning
principles and of
differentiated
instruction” (p.394)

Van Tomlinson Rose & Complementarity: “Universal design “The additional NA

Garderen & (1999) Meyer “Although differentiated for learning overlaps contributions of UDL
Whittaker (2002) instruction, UDL, and considerably with are its emphasis on
(2006) Tomlinson multicultural education are differentiated initial design
& Eidson Hall, rarely discussed in an instruction, considerations and
(2003) Strangma integrated manner, they particularly with digital technology”
n& can be viewed as regard to material (p.13)
Meyer supportive theories with and instructional
(2003) multiple converging choice” (p.13)
concepts” (p.12)

Note. NA=not available

50
 51

Table 3
Descriptive features and outcomes for peer-reviewed studies that perceived DI embedded
within UDL

UDL
Study DI model Interrelationship between
model Similarities Differences Study findings
UDL & DI

Abell, Tomlinson Rose & DI embedded within UDL: “UDL and DI offer NA “by offering UDL-
Jung & (2001; Meyer “UDL offers the classroom close parallels in aligned instructional
Taylor 2003c) (2002) instructional environment new relationship to their approaches and
(2011) ways for students to engage in the foundational curriculum
Hall, instructional process through components” materials, senior-
Strangman differentiated instructional (p.174) level students might
& Meyer practices and digitised begin to show more
(2003) instructional content. These “there is an interest and engage
materials offer built-in scaffolds intersection between more fully with
and supports to assist all students UDL and DI in that curriculum materials
regardless of their ability which curriculum design that are relevant and
ultimately supports personalised increases flexibility comprehensible
learning” (p.173) in teaching and given their own
decreases the learning style,
barriers that ability and
frequently limit interests” (p.182)
student engagement
with materials and
learning in the
classroom” (p.174)

Arnett Tomlinson Council for DI embedded within UDL: NA NA NA

(2010) (2004a) Exceptional “‘universal design’; this
Children inclusion model advocates that
(2005) the teacher design and implement
differentiated instruction that is as
applicable to as wide a range of
student needs and learning styles
as possible, rather than trying to
adjust a lesson retroactively to
accommodate a learner’s” (p.560-
561)

Ashman Tomlinson Rose & DI embedded within UDL: “I have emphasised “If there is a NA
(2010) (2001; Meyer “Curriculum differentiation the importance of difference
2003b) (2002) appears to be an alternative way Universal Design for between UDL
of framing UDL” (p.670) Learning (UDL), and
curriculum differentiation,
“I should apply the principles and differentiation and it may be in the
practices of UDL. This meant that individualised delivery of a
I should differentiate the learning as key differentiated
curriculum for my students to the elements in curriculum that
greatest extent possible and apply inclusive practices” can be both
adult learning procedures in line (p. 669) planned and
with effective PL characteristics” spontaneous
(p.673) “While university (Tomlinson
education lecturers 2001).” (p. 670)
often talk about, and
promote, Universal
Design for Learning
(UDL) and
curriculum
differentiation as the
foundations of
inclusive education,
they do not appear
to apply the relevant
principle to their
own teaching in
tertiary education”
(p. 667)

51
 52

Courey, Van CAST DI embedded within UDL: NA NA “A comparison of

Tappe, Garderen et (2009; “UDL supports teachers’ efforts lesson plans by
Siker & al., (2009) 2011b) to meet the challenge of diversity teacher candidates in
LePage by providing flexible instructional a teacher preparation
(2012) Meyer & materials, techniques, and program before and
Rose strategies that help teachers after UDL training
(2000) differentiate instruction to meet was presented. After
these varied needs” (p.22) training, teachers (n
Rose & = 45) incorporated
Meyer more differentiated
(2006) options and varied
teacher strategies
Rose, based on UDL
Meyer, & principles into their
Hitchcock, lesson plans, so that
(2005) the content was
more accessible to
all students” (p.7)

Friend & Tomlinson Hitchcock DI embedded within UDL: NA NA NA

Pope (2000b, Meyer, “The application of UDL that
(2005) 2000c) Rose & teachers can use daily is
Jackson differentiation. A considerable
(2002) body of research has
demonstrated that the extent to
which teachers differentiate -that
is, the ways in which they adjust
instruction to help students learn
information, remember it, and
demonstrate that they have
learned it- strongly affects the
achievement of their students.”
(p. 59)

Jiménez, Tomlinson Rose & DI embedded within UDL: NA NA NA

Graf & (2001) Meyer “UDL encompasses—or at least
Rose (2000a; complements—existing and well-
(2007) 2002; known instructional practices
2006) (e.g., reciprocal teaching,
cooperative learning,
differentiated instruction). (…)
These practices support the
principles of UDL which serves
as an inclusive framework for
these teaching methods” (p. 46)

Katz Tomlinson Three DI embedded within TMB of NA NA NA

(2013) & Imbeau Block UDL:
(2010) Model “In the second block of this
(TBM) of model, called Inclusive
UDL model Instructional Practice, a step-by-
(Katz, step planning and instructional
2012) framework is outlined (Katz,
2012a). First, physical and
CAST instructional environments are
(2012a) designed so that students have
access to differentiated learning
opportunities in order to address
their varied learning modes.
Second, teachers are taught a
method of year and unit planning
that incorporates evidence based
practices such as Understanding
by Design (Brown, 2004;
Wiggins & McTighe, 2005),
Differentiated Instruction
(Beecher & Sweeny, 2008;
Tomlinson, 2010)” (p.158)

52
 53

Mavrou Tomlinson Rose & DI embedded within UDL: NA NA The authors

& (2001) Meyer A UDL curriculum brings analysed if the
Symeoni (2002) together (both vertically and Greek-Cypriot
dou horizontally) the elements of National curriculum
(2014) CAST differentiation (for instance, (NNC). “According
(2011a; differentiation of goals, content, to the findings, the
2012b) methods, and assessment), and NNC does not
the principles of inclusion, in accommodate the
every aspect of the educational principles of the
system” (p. 921) UDL to an extent
that would enable
“A curriculum based on the teachers
principles of UDL would differentiate their
encourage teachers to teaching” (p. 918)
differentiate their teaching with
more confidence” (p. 930)

Meo Tomlinson Meyer & DI embedded within UDL: NA NA NA

(2008) (1999) Rose “The principles and practices of
(1998; UDL are rooted in a number of
2000; research-proven educational
2005); approaches with which teachers
may already be familiar. It draws
Rose & on and extends aspects of
Meyer differentiated instruction
(2002; (Tomlinson, 1999), which
2006) teachers use to individualize
criteria for student success,
Rose, teaching methods, and means of
Meyer & student expression while
Hitchcock monitoring student progress.” (p.
(2005) 23)

Michael Tomlinson Meyer & DI embedded within UDL: NA NA NA

& Trezek (1999; Rose “Using universal design learning
(2006) 2001) (2000) provides a conceptual framework
that may include differentiating
complex content to be acquired
and used based on learning
systems, approaches and styles,
and multiple intelligences, as well
as varying cognitive, physical,
sensory, motivational, cultural,
gender, and language ability
levels” (p. 313)

Selmer & Tomlinson Rose & DI embedded within UDL: NA “The use of “Teachers who use
Floyd (2001) Meyer “Using the framework of UDL, UDL the UDL framework
(2012) (2002) the teacher differentiates her framework does as a planning guide
instruction with intentional not modify will promote a
planning” (p.146) curriculum for differentiated
individual learning
“differentiated instruction refers students; environment that
to a teaching theory guided by the instead it supports all learning
belief that instructional attempts to needs and learning
approaches should vary and be create equal styles without
adapted in relation to diverse access to similar unnecessarily
individual students in classrooms academic rigor reducing students’
(Tomlinson 2001). In for all students” access to
comparison, UDL provides (p.147) mathematics”
teachers with a framework to (p.151)
proactively design instruction in
ways that decrease the barriers
often limiting student access to
material and learning in
classrooms (Rose and Meyer
2002), thereby creating universal
—rather than learner specific—
differentiation (p.147)

53
 54

Tobin Tomlinson Nolet & DI embedded within UDL: NA NA “The sequence of

(2008) (1999; McLaughli “Universal design vs planning needs to
2000c; n (2000) Differentiated instruction. emphasize universal
2003b; Universal design and design first to
2004a; differentiated instruction are advance the literacy
2005a) highly compatible concepts. of a maximum
Differentiated instruction falls number of learners
Tomlinson under the larger category of from the outset.
& McTighe universal design. In fact, the core Differentiated
(2006) of good differentiated literacy instruction goes a
lessons is an understanding of the step further to tailor
importance of universal design. often small but
(…) With universal design in significant
place, teachers may then adaptations to
differentiate for individuals who ensure success for
need support beyond the individual students
considerations built-in for the sometimes outside
whole class” (p.161) the whole group
context” (p.161)

Villa, Tomlinson Meyer & DI embedded within UDL: NA NA NA

Thousand (2001) Rose “Differentiation has evolved to
, Nevin (2000) what now is known as universal
& Liston design for learning (UDL). UDL
(2005) is an educational application of
universal design principles
developed and used by architects,
product designers, engineers, and
environmental design researchers.
It is used to make products,
communications, and the physical
environment usable to as many
people as possible at little or no
extra cost.
UDL, then, refers to the creation
of differentiated learning
experiences that minimize the
need for modifications for
particular circumstances or
individuals” (p. 35)
Note. NA=not available

54

Table 4
Descriptive features and outcomes for peer-reviewed studies that reported incompatibility
between DI and UDL
UDL
Study DI model Interrelationship between
model
UDL & DI
Baglieri, Tomlinson Hitchcock, Incompatibility:
Valle, (1999) Meyer, “Although promising in its ideals,
Connor Rose & Differentiated Instruction—when
& Jackson narrowed into learning operations—
Gallagher (2002) too often materializes as a
(2011) hierarchical tiering or tracking
Pisha & process. That is, differentiation
Coyne assumes a baseline and then modifies
(2001) “up” or “down” for particular
individuals. Consequently, it
Scott, recreates the same divisions it seeks
McGuire, to eradicate. In other words, precision
& Shaw in leveling emerges as deterministic
(2003) tracking and ability grouping in the
field of practice, rather than inviting
fluidity in approach. Practice born in
UDL, in contrast, begins with a
holistic conception of the potential for
many possible learning experiences,
in which the emphasis shifts from a
focus on the benefits to an individual
to the benefit of the whole
community, from determined
outcomes to those interpreted through
open inquiry in assessment” (p.273)
Darrow Tomlinson Thousand, Incompatibility:
(2014) (2001) Villa, & “DI operates under the assumption
Nevin that not all accommodations for
(2007) learner differences can be planned
proactively” (…) “Although DI and
UDL share several important
principles for learning, the
distinguishing feature of DI is less
emphasis on proactive instructional
design in favour of a formative
instructional design based on student
learning” (p.2)
55
Similarities Differences
“We acknowledge that the NA
popular idea of Differentiated
Instruction (Tomlinson, 1999)
is similar to UDL.
Differentiated Instruction offers
a concept of lesson planning
that strives to incorporate
diversity into whole-group
design by including
modifications that can be made
to the learning tasks offered to
students.” (p.272)
“DI involves working with “However, DI differs
groups of students and from UDL in how and
individualizing the curriculum when instructional
for those within the group. It adjustments are made
shares many of the Universal for students. DI makes
Design for Learning (UDL) use of formative
goals for teaching and assessments with
promoting student learning, accompanying
with both initiatives established adjustments in the
to embrace student differences curriculum” (p.2)
and ensure that students have
every opportunity to learn in
ways that best suit their
individual needs. Both UDL
and DI include built-in supports
for students and suggest
scaffolding instruction”. (p.2)
“Another important component
of DI is varying the
instructional process, which is
similar to the UDL principle of
providing multiple means of
representation.” (p.2)
“A final important component
of DI is varying the expected
products or outcomes of
learning. Similar to the UDL
principle of allowing for
multiple and flexible
expressions of student
learning” (p. 3)
55
 56

Edyburn Tomlinson Center for Incompatibility: NA “I choose to believe

(2010) (1999; Universal “I would like to take this opportunity the critical focus of
2004a) Design to extend the conversation and UDL is its emphasis on
(1997) highlight nuances associated with the variables that can
translating UDL theory into practice” be manipulated to
CAST (p.33) “The claim that UDL has been produce high
(2008) scientifically validated through performance. I am
research cannot be substantiated at inspired by
Meyer & this time” (p.34) Tomlinson’s (1999)
Rose conceptual work on the
(2000) “If UDL is nothing more than design of equalizers
providing students with alternatives, it that could be utilized
Rose & fails significantly as a new paradigm to manipulate key
Meyer for enhancing educational instructional variables
(2000b; achievement, as it is simply another to make curriculum
2002) futile attempt to argue that schools accessible and
needs more resources.” (p.39) engaging.” (p.39)
“Perhaps the teacher’s role is more
appropriately associated with
implementing principles of
differentiated instruction (which may
include some products that have been
universally designed).” (p.38)

Franz, Tomlinson Hall, Incompatibility: “Both approaches consider the “Differentiated

Ivy & (2005c; Strangman “In essence, differentiated instruction individual needs of students instruction involves a
McKissic 2011) & Meyer is reactive while UDL is proactive and the interplay of these needs continuous monitoring
k (2016) (2003) (Hall, Strangman, and Meyer 2003). in the learning environment” through formative
Both approaches consider the (p.74) assessments, resulting
CAST individual needs of students and the in reactions and
(2011a) interplay of these needs in the changes to instruction,
learning environment; however, curriculum materials,
differentiated instruction typically educational settings,
addresses the needs of struggling and student products
learners, whereas UDL addresses the over time. Instead,
learning of all students, allowing UDL involves
teachers to consider both remedial planning instruction
and enrichment opportunities.” (p. that is accessible to a
74) diverse group of
learners.” (p.74)

Note. NA=not available

56
 57

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the review inclusion process.

Search 1- Records identified though database searching on title, abstract and keywords: 32
ERIC: 12 PsycINFO: 6 Web of Science: 7 Education full text: 6 ScienceDirect: 1

Excluded duplicates: 4

Records screened: 28

Excluded records: 21
 Not peer-reviewed
 Tables were used in order to relate UDL and
DI instead of written explanations
 Titles and subtitles to discuss the
interrelationship instead of written
explanations
 Missing references on the conceptualizations
of UDL or DI

Articles included: 7

Search 2- Records identified though full-text search: 2,048

Google Scholar: 1,899 Education full text: 149

Excluded records because included through Search 1: 7

Excluded duplicates: 64

Records screened: 1,977

Excluded records: 1953

 Not peer-reviewed
 Language (not English)
 UDL and DI were not explicitly contrasted (no
transition words)
 Only commonalities between UDL and DI
models were described
 Only tables were used in order to relate UDL
and DI
 DI was not referred to by any author or study
 UDL was not referred to by any author or study
 UDL and DI were only mentioned in the
bibliography

Articles included: 24
Articles derived from hand
searching references: 3

Final articles included: 27

57
 58

Figure 2. Graphical representation of the three interrelationships between UDL and DI.

1. Complementarity interrelationship

UDL
DI

DI UDL

2. Embedded interrelationship

DI

UDL

3. Distinctive/incompatible interrelationship

UDL
DI

58
Highlights

 Three conceptual interrelationships between UDL and DI exist in the literature

 The complementary interrelationship, tends to diminish the status of either UDL or DI
 The embedded interrelationship of DI within UDL, interprets DI as the act of
differentiating
 The incompatible interrelationship, ignores most recent theoretical developments
 To date, no research has contrasted both UDL and DI empirically