Designing for variability
This shift in thinking reframes how teachers approach barriers to learning. Rather than focusing on why students are struggling, UDL directs attention to where barriers exist within the design of learning itself. Language is central to this discussion. It functions simultaneously as a goal, as students develop academic proficiency, and as a potential barrier when access to content depends on language that is not yet fully developed.
When tasks rely heavily on complex academic English, or when students are required to demonstrate understanding in a single mode - often extended writing - language can obscure what students actually know. From this perspective, multilingual learners are not the issue; they make limitations in design more visible.
When tasks rely heavily on complex academic English, or when students are required to demonstrate understanding in a single mode - often extended writing - language can obscure what students actually know. From this perspective, multilingual learners are not the issue; they make limitations in design more visible.
Research into Practice Webinar Series
A critical implication of this is the need to reconsider assumptions about how quickly students develop academic language. Evidence consistently shows that this is a long-term process, usually taking from 5-9 years before learners can fully access cognitively demanding curriculum content in an additional language.
This means that barriers related to language are not temporary but long-term. Planning for access cannot be treated as an additional layer or short-term support. It must be embedded within everyday teaching. In practice, which involves making language demands explicit, modelling how language is used within specific subjects, and providing structured support for reading, writing, and discussion.
The key point is that language and content are not competing priorities; without access to language, access to content remains limited.
This means that barriers related to language are not temporary but long-term. Planning for access cannot be treated as an additional layer or short-term support. It must be embedded within everyday teaching. In practice, which involves making language demands explicit, modelling how language is used within specific subjects, and providing structured support for reading, writing, and discussion.
The key point is that language and content are not competing priorities; without access to language, access to content remains limited.
The 3 dimensions of UDL: representation, engagement, and expression
UDL provides a useful structure for thinking about this through three interconnected dimensions: representation, engagement, and action and expression. These are not discrete elements, but overlapping aspects of effective design. Access to content depends on how it is represented, engagement depends on whether learners can connect with the material, and expression depends on whether students can demonstrate understanding without being constrained by language proficiency. In multilingual classrooms, these dimensions are tightly interwoven. Designing for one inevitably affects the others.
Engagement, for example, is often framed in terms of motivation, but within a UDL lens it also encompasses representation - whose knowledge, experiences, and perspectives are visible within the curriculum. In international contexts, this raises important questions about whose voices are prioritised and how far curriculum content reflects the lived experiences of students. When learners consistently encounter unfamiliar or culturally distant contexts, this can create both cognitive and relational barriers. Learning becomes harder to access, and students may feel disconnected from it. Designing for engagement therefore involves broadening the range of perspectives represented, connecting learning to students’ experiences, and recognising that a sense of belonging is central to effective learning.
Language plays a significant role in both access and engagement, particularly when students’ full linguistic repertoires are recognised as resources for learning. A pedagogical translanguaging approach enables learners to draw on all of their languages to process and make meaning, reducing linguistic barriers while maintaining cognitive challenge. For example, when introducing a new concept, students might initially engage with ideas through visuals and structured discussion, using familiar language to clarify understanding before moving towards more formal expression in the language of instruction. The intention is not to replace the target language, but to expand the range of tools available for thinking and learning.
The dimension of action and expression further reinforces the need for careful design. A central question is whether students are able to demonstrate their understanding at their cognitive level, or whether they are limited by the mode through which they are required to respond. When tasks rely on a narrow range of outputs, particularly extended written English, this can restrict what learners are able to show. Broadening the ways in which students can express their understanding ensures that assessment is aligned with learning, rather than inadvertently measuring language proficiency alone. This is not about lowering expectations, but about removing unnecessary barriers to demonstrating knowledge.
Engagement, for example, is often framed in terms of motivation, but within a UDL lens it also encompasses representation - whose knowledge, experiences, and perspectives are visible within the curriculum. In international contexts, this raises important questions about whose voices are prioritised and how far curriculum content reflects the lived experiences of students. When learners consistently encounter unfamiliar or culturally distant contexts, this can create both cognitive and relational barriers. Learning becomes harder to access, and students may feel disconnected from it. Designing for engagement therefore involves broadening the range of perspectives represented, connecting learning to students’ experiences, and recognising that a sense of belonging is central to effective learning.
Language plays a significant role in both access and engagement, particularly when students’ full linguistic repertoires are recognised as resources for learning. A pedagogical translanguaging approach enables learners to draw on all of their languages to process and make meaning, reducing linguistic barriers while maintaining cognitive challenge. For example, when introducing a new concept, students might initially engage with ideas through visuals and structured discussion, using familiar language to clarify understanding before moving towards more formal expression in the language of instruction. The intention is not to replace the target language, but to expand the range of tools available for thinking and learning.
The dimension of action and expression further reinforces the need for careful design. A central question is whether students are able to demonstrate their understanding at their cognitive level, or whether they are limited by the mode through which they are required to respond. When tasks rely on a narrow range of outputs, particularly extended written English, this can restrict what learners are able to show. Broadening the ways in which students can express their understanding ensures that assessment is aligned with learning, rather than inadvertently measuring language proficiency alone. This is not about lowering expectations, but about removing unnecessary barriers to demonstrating knowledge.
UDL and Multilingualism
From deficit thinking to design thinking
Underlying all of these considerations is a shift from deficit thinking to design thinking. Multilingual learners are often framed in terms of what they lack, particularly in relation to English proficiency. UDL reframes this as a question of design: how learning environments, tasks, and expectations can be structured to ensure access for the full range of learners in the classroom. This is both a pedagogical and an ethical position. As the slides note, teaching is inherently a moral practice; the decisions made in designing learning directly influence who can participate, who can succeed, and who experiences a sense of belonging.
What emerges from this perspective is not a new set of strategies, but a different orientation to planning. Variability becomes the starting point, not the complication. Language is understood as integral to learning, not separate from it. Access, engagement, and expression are designed in relation to one another. In multilingual classrooms, this approach is essential. It shifts practice away from adapting for specific groups and towards designing learning that is accessible and meaningful for all from the outset. Inclusion, in this sense, is not something added to teaching; it is built into the design of learning itself.
What emerges from this perspective is not a new set of strategies, but a different orientation to planning. Variability becomes the starting point, not the complication. Language is understood as integral to learning, not separate from it. Access, engagement, and expression are designed in relation to one another. In multilingual classrooms, this approach is essential. It shifts practice away from adapting for specific groups and towards designing learning that is accessible and meaningful for all from the outset. Inclusion, in this sense, is not something added to teaching; it is built into the design of learning itself.
References
- CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from https://udlguidelines.cast.org
- Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. CAST Professional Publishing.