The SENIA International Inclusive Practice Standards provide schools with a roadmap for examining the systems, structures, and practices that allow a wider variability of learners to thrive. In our first article of this six-part series, we begin with Leadership, Management, and Facilities, exploring how a school’s mission, vision, and admissions processes can lay the foundation for meaningful disability inclusion. In this second article, we turn to Domain 2: Supplemental Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment and explore Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a powerful approach to designing classrooms around the reality of learner variability. Rather than waiting for students to struggle and then adding individual accommodations, UDL asks educators to anticipate barriers, build flexibility into learning from the start, and use progress monitoring to continually refine teaching practices. The result is not simply greater access for students who need additional support, but stronger instructional design for everyone (Craig et al., 2024; Griful-Freixenet et al., 2020).
When considering a Grade 5 science class, three students presented challenges to learning in completely different ways. One child had trouble comprehending the language, the other one had ADHD, and the third learned using visual aids. Initially, the teacher was facing three problems. In reality, there was actually just one problem – the lesson was planned based on the needs of an “average learner,” who does not exist.
This is where the power of Universal Design for Learning lies. That is because the key concept behind the theory of UDL—where accessibility is ingrained in our teaching DNA—is possibly the best way to break down the systemic barriers that exist within international education.
In international school classrooms with huge amounts of linguistic, cultural, and cognitive diversity, the idea of the child's learning difficulty being seen as an individual problem rather than a mismatch between the child and an overly rigid classroom setting is no longer acceptable. Shifting from making last-minute adjustments to design means creating an inclusive approach which will no longer be an exhausting afterthought.
Grounding the Paradigm Shift in Research
However, in the past, it was known that students who did not comprehend the lesson content should make adjustments in their lives. In modern times, based on current research, proper instructional design can positively influence all learners.
Implementation of the UDL model at the Tier 1 level in the context of the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) model will make it possible to develop an adaptive system influencing 80-85% of learners without any extra effort from teachers (Thomas et al., 2023). As one can see from the research by Craig et al. (2024), the use of UDL by teachers is associated with better academic results of learners.
For students in international schools where language is considered a barrier preventing learners from learning properly, removing environmental barriers at Tier 1 will help implement Tiers 2 and 3.
MTSS Tiered Structure at a Glance
| Small-group skill building, strategic scaffolds, and targeted re-teaching. |
Protecting Mental Energy
UDL can also be understood through the lens of Cognitive Load Theory, particularly when considering how instructional design affects working-memory demands (Sweller, 2020). Working memory is a limited energy resource that gets consumed. Under the circumstances of the conventional classroom model, those learners who have troubles with English as an additional language and/or have difficulties with executive functions expend all the available energy on decoding the provided material which has been delivered in an unfriendly form. The cognitive load in this case works extraneously; it is unnecessary in terms of forming schemata.
By reducing unnecessary barriers in how information is presented and how students engage with it, UDL may help reduce avoidable processing demands, preserving more working-memory capacity for the intended learning task (Sweller, 2020).
Cognitive Impact Comparison
Note: Cognitive-load principles informed by Sweller (2020).
Normalizing Support: The Stigma-Free Classroom
The conventional classroom model is designed under the assumption of the existence of “an average learner.” Designing learning space only from one modality means by default excluding some learners from it.
In addition to the academic disadvantages of the classroom environment, it generates social and emotional pressure for the learners. Usage of any scaffolding tools makes students visible and marks them as “the different ones.”
However, provision of these supports for all the students at equal measures, as it is done in UDL classrooms, leads to normalization of scaffolds. According to the results of scientific research, the combination of a UDL framework and differentiated instruction makes up for the disadvantage of equality versus equity in the classroom (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2020).
Separate What You're Assessing From How Students Demonstrate It
The only way to make this change effective is for teachers to learn one key change: distinguish between what you want to assess and how you do the assessment.
If your rubric assesses "written organization," while the skill you want students to learn is "analyze historical cause and effect," then you penalize a child with dysgraphia or ELL for being unable to use one method of demonstration. As a result, you receive incorrect data because what is assessed is not analysis of historical processes but writing skills or motor abilities.
Separating Assessment Targets from Tasks
Providing choices in Action and Expression gives you correct information about what children know. Within an integrated UDL–MTSS framework, reducing Tier 1 access barriers can help teams make better-informed decisions about whether a student requires increasingly targeted Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention (Thomas et al., 2023).
Practical Implementation: Audit the Barriers, Not the Whole Plan
Changing the culture in your school system need not involve completely changing your curriculum. All you need to do is start small by analyzing all the barriers present in the current routine.
The 4-Phase Implementation Process
Drawing on the integration of UDL, differentiated instruction, and MTSS described in the research (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2023), the following four-phase process translates these principles into a practical structure for collaborative planning.
Phase 1: Goal Setting — Identify core learning targets and explicitly separate what you're assessing from how students demonstrate it (general education teachers and special educational needs specialists).
Phase 2: Barrier Audit — Analyze the curriculum for sensory, linguistic, and executive function bottlenecks before teaching begins (general education, English as an additional language, and special educational needs specialists).
Phase 3: Universal Scaffolding — Embed flexible options for engagement, representation, and expression directly into Tier 1 core instruction (grade-level / department planning teams).
Phase 4: Iterative Review — Evaluate student progress monitoring data to refine universal design features before assuming a student needs an intervention pull-out (collaborative teams).
One of the questions that should be raised in collaborative planning sessions by the leaders of the school could be, “What is the one thing that could get in the way of a student having access to that concept today?”
Starting small would actually mean tearing down the departmental walls that keep the support specialists and English as an additional language (EAL) coaches away in their own office space. By bringing these specialists into the co-planning process when designing a unit from scratch, it will be possible to get rid of any potential barriers to learning for your students.
You can start by providing a single choice during an upcoming unit, such as a visual graphic organizer along with a lecture or an audio reflection in addition to the written work.
The Collaborative UDL and MTSS Barrier-Auditing Template
Phase 1: Separating Target from Task (Goal Clarification)
Before designing activities, the planning team must isolate the core academic standard from the medium of expression to ensure accurate progress monitoring.
Phase 2: Proactive Barrier Audit
Use this checklist during collaborative planning to anticipate where Tier 1 instruction might inadvertently create barriers for exceptional learners, EAL students, or those with executive functioning profiles.
1. Representation Barriers (How information is received)
Text-Heavy Inputs: Are instructions, rubrics, and content delivered solely through printed English text?
Scaffold: Provide digital texts compatible with text-to-speech, bilingual glossaries, or paired visual anchors.
Aural-Only Inputs: Does the lesson rely heavily on lecture or verbal instructions without visual reinforcement?
Scaffold: Provide interactive graphic organizers, closed-captioned video alternatives, or guided skeletal notes.
2. Action and Expression Barriers (How students show what they know)
Time-Constrained Processing: Does the task require rapid retrieval or immediate written output?
Scaffold: Offer structured wait-time strategies, speech-to-text options, or asynchronous reflection formats.
Executive Function Demands: Does the project require multi-step planning, self-monitoring, and organization without visible milestones?
Scaffold: Embed checklists, visual rubrics, progress-tracking templates, and benchmark mini-deadlines.
3. Engagement Barriers (How students stay motivated and regulated)
Lack of Relevance or Agency: Is the context of the lesson highly culturally specific or completely passive?
Scaffold: Introduce choice menus (content, process, or product), collaborative vs. independent working options, and clear real-world utility.
Sensory and Affective Obstacles: Does the environment present high-anxiety triggers, sensory overload, or sustained focus demands without relief?
Scaffold: Create quiet zones, provide self-regulation options, and pre-teach transition routines.
Phase 3: The Design Matrix (The Choice Menu)
To transform accommodations into universal classroom design features, use the framework below to build flexible options directly into the core curriculum around your target standard.
Phase 4: Tier 1 MTSS Triangulation and Adjustment Loop
Once the unit is underway, the team should meet to analyze formative progress monitoring data. This step ensures teams distinguish between a student needing intensive Tier 2/3 intervention and a student facing a lingering Tier 1 design barrier.
Analyze Formative Data Trends: Identify Patterns.
Review the latest progress-monitoring data. If more than 15–20% of the class is struggling to meet a benchmark, teams should first examine the quality, accessibility, and fidelity of Tier 1 instruction before assuming that large numbers of students require additional intervention (Thomas et al., 2023).
Isolate the Barrier Source: Environmental vs. Cognitive.
Determine if the struggle is due to a skill deficit (e.g., decoding words) or an environmental barrier (e.g., instructions are too complex/dense). Ask: "Does the student demonstrate the skill under different environmental conditions?"
Adjust the Universal Design: Rapid Iteration.
Modify the Tier 1 plan immediately. Introduce a new representation model (e.g., a visual model or video exemplar) or modify the action channel (e.g., allowing oral explanations) for the entire class.
Monitor and Triangulate: Evaluate Response to Design.
Assess the impact of the design change over 1–2 weeks. If a student continues to struggle despite robust, verified UDL Tier 1 execution, utilize this clean data to justify targeted Tier 2 or Tier 3 diagnostic support.
Team Reflection and Review (Meeting Debrief)
Did we reduce the need for specialized "pull-out" or "add-on" accommodations during this unit?
Did the use of universal scaffolds improve performance or agency for students without identified learning needs?
How will we share the successful UDL adjustments from this unit with other grade-level or subject teams?
References
Craig, S. L., Smith, S. J., & Frey, B. B. (2024). Universal design for learning: Connecting teacher implementation to student outcomes. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(11), 2458–2474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2113459
Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Vantieghem, W., & Gheyssens, E. (2020). Exploring the interrelationship between Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 29, 100306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100306
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
Thomas, E. R., Lembke, E. S., & Gandhi, A. G. (2023). Universal Design for Learning within an Integrated Multitiered System of Support. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 38(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12302
Dr. Zachary Berezowski is an international educator and leader originally from Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He currently serves as an Inclusive Education Specialist in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and previously served as the director of student support services at The KAUST School in Saudi Arabia. Zachary has close to two decades of experience in education—including 14 years in leadership—across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North America, with a strong focus on inclusion, systemic equity, and data-driven student support. He holds a doctorate in educational leadership with a focus on MTSS, alongside specialist credentials in Special Education and English as a Second Language (ESL), and is deeply committed to building sustainable, asset-based learning environments where every student can thrive. He is deeply committed to SENIA International and its mission of fostering equitable, inclusive learning communities where every student can thrive. His professional interests include Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and inclusive instructional frameworks.
