education

sciences
Article
Universal Design for Learning: Is It Gaining Momentum in
Irish Education?
Margaret Flood 1, * and Joanne Banks 2

1 National Council for Curriculum and Assessment Ireland, D02 KH36 Dublin, Ireland
2 School of Education, Trinity College Dublin, D02 PN40 Dublin, Ireland; banksjo@[Link]
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: Responding to student diversity has become a key policy priority in education systems
around the world. In addition to international and national institutional policies, major changes are
underway in instructional practices and pedagogy in many national contexts. Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) has become a key pedagogical approach used in education systems which seek to
promote inclusive and equitable education in response to student diversity. Despite Ireland’s policy
commitment to inclusive education, UDL has been traditionally focused on the higher education
sector with little discussion about the role UDL can play at primary and second-level education to
achieve inclusion. Furthermore, there has been no research to date on the extent to which education
policy reforms are introducing part, or all, of the aspects of the UDL framework. The purpose of this
paper is to examine the extent to which UDL is gaining momentum in Irish primary and second-level
education through an analysis of curriculum policy. This paper examines the development and
evolution of UDL in Irish education policy over the past decade by exploring the use of UDL in
national educational curriculum frameworks. The paper highlights how UDL is slowly and implicitly



emerging in education policy at a national level but suggests further momentum could be gained

 from its inclusion in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and professional development programmes.
Citation: Flood, M.; Banks, J. By exploring the development of UDL within existing policy contexts, the paper argues for a more
Universal Design for Learning: Is It explicit commitment to UDL as part of ongoing curriculum reform at the primary level, the review of
Gaining Momentum in Irish Senior Cycle, and Ireland’s broader inclusive education agenda.
Education? Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341.
[Link] Keywords: universal design for learning; inclusive education; policy; primary education; second-
educsci11070341 level education; Ireland

Academic Editor: Garry Hornby

Received: 14 June 2021

1. Introduction
Accepted: 8 July 2021
Published: 12 July 2021
Internationally, and in Ireland, education systems are being challenged to respond
to diverse student populations with a growing recognition that students may come from
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
different socioeconomic, ethnic, cultural, and learning backgrounds, as well as students
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ students [1–3]. International policies such as the United Na-
published maps and institutional affil- tions Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities [3], United Nations Convention
iations. of the Rights of the Child [4], and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [2]
stress the need for countries to provide inclusive and equitable education for everyone.
Alongside the ratification of international conventions and introduction of national policies
that promote inclusive education, focus has turned to whether instructional practices, or
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
pedagogy, can increase access and engagement with the curriculum for every student [5–7].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Over the past two decades, the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework has
This article is an open access article
become a key pedagogical framework which seeks to address the traditional ‘one size fits
distributed under the terms and all’ curriculum that exists in many countries [8,9]. UDL assumes diversity in the student
conditions of the Creative Commons population and provides guidelines where they have flexibility and choices around how
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// they learn and how they can share what they have learned [10] (p. 3). There is growing
[Link]/licenses/by/ interest in UDL across education systems worldwide with increasing evidence around
4.0/). its effectiveness in creating more inclusive classrooms across education sectors [11–13].

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341. [Link] [Link]

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 2 of 11

Until recently, UDL in Ireland has been primarily reserved for higher education and is
often associated with support services for students with disabilities. Despite this growing
interest in UDL as a possible ‘solution’ to inequities in further and higher education sectors,
there has been little research on the role that UDL could play at primary and second-level
education in Ireland. Yet, there is a notable increase in online forums, workshops, and
national and international lectures on the topic of UDL in recent years among educators.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which UDL is gaining momentum in
Irish primary and second-level education through an analysis of curriculum policy over
time and across sectors.

2. What Is Universal Design for Learning

UDL is an approach to learning, teaching, and assessment design that is proactive
in addressing the varied identities, competencies, learning strengths, and needs of every
learner in our learning environment. Developed by CAST in the mid-1980s, studies
highlight its potential to promote the engagement and independence of students as it
ensures a variety of pathways through choice and flexibility [9]. These pathways provide
for: understanding content; goals that are clear and specific to the expected outcome;
and student assessment that is flexibly designed to enable learners to demonstrate their
knowledge, understanding, and skills in a variety of ways [8]. At the core of UDL are three
principles that educators are required to provide: multiple ways for students to engage in
their learning (principle one: Engagement); multiple means of representation to provide
students with equitable access to the learning content (principle two: Representation); and
multiple ways for students to demonstrate and express their knowledge, understanding,
and skills (principle three: Action and Expression). These principles are broken down
into nine guidelines (three per principle) that provide suggestions to increase access to the
learning goal, to build on students’ learning and develop their knowledge, understanding,
and skills, and to support students to internalise their learning and skills. Each guideline
has corresponding checkpoints, thirty-one in total, that provide more detailed suggestions
on how to provide multiple means within each principle.

3. Principles of Universal Design for Learning

The first principle underpinning UDL, providing multiple means of engagement, is
the belief that learning contexts need to be designed in a flexible manner that enables every
student to find their path into the learning experience, participate in a meaningful way,
build their capacity, and stay motivated when faced with challenges [8]. This principle fo-
cuses on the teacher designing learning experiences that the students can connect with [14].
When students can bring their identity, prior knowledge, and experiences into the learning,
and this is valued, the student will be more motivated to actively engage [10,15]. On
the other hand, teachers are also designing to support students’ cognitive load because
if there is too much to focus on the learning environment students may not know what
to pay attention to or where to direct their cognitive energy [16]. Thus, teachers need to
ensure students can access the language, background, and skills to engage in the learning
experience and ensure they are not embedding additional layers of skills or activities that
may create a barrier to students’ meaningful participation.
The second principle underpinning UDL, providing multiple means of representation,
is the belief that for learning environments to support the variability of learners to access,
engage, interpret, and understand learning content, teachers must present the information
through a variety of media and methods [8]. By presenting information in multiple ways
to students, teachers reduce barriers to accessing learning, therefore creating an inclusive
learning experience for every student. Through creative design, teachers can facilitate
different levels of prior knowledge, experience, skills, and capacity, and honour students’
diverse backgrounds and identities [10,15].
The third principle underpinning UDL, providing multiple means of action and
expression, is the belief that students’ success should not be based solely on an inflexi-
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 3 of 11

ble summative assessment. Rather, it should be personalised (i.e., choice and flexibility)
through continuous formative and summative assessment where the means of demonstrat-
ing and expressing students’ knowledge, understanding, skills, and values is chosen by
the learner in line with the goal or learning being assessed [8]. Thus, for a curriculum to
be inclusive, it needs to incorporate a variety of options for students to demonstrate their
learning and capacity as there is no one-size-fits-all method [12,15,17].

4. Research on the Effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning

Despite the wealth of literature on the neuroscientific origins of UDL [8,18] or the
benefits of a UDL approach in achieving more inclusive education systems [10], there are
increasing calls for evidence-based research to understand the ‘soundness’ of UDL [19,20].
Where empirical evidence on the effectiveness of UDL exists, there appears to be more
emphasis on teacher change and practice than student outcomes. Indeed, Capp (2017)
and Edyburn (2005) note that the principle of multiple means of engagement is the least
discussed principle in the literature [12,17]. Student engagement is often a secondary
outcome in studies focusing on the principles: multiple means of representation and
multiple means of action and expression [12,17]. The lack of clear measurements to examine
the impact of UDL on students’ learning outcomes is a significant shortcoming [21] and
there is a growing emphasis in research on how to measure UDL’s impact on sustained
engagement for every student rather than just a targeted audience [22].

5. Student Outcomes
Although empirical studies specifically focusing on the impact of UDL on student out-
comes are limited, those available indicate UDL’s potential to improve student outcomes.
Increased student engagement, participation, and outcomes are noted across several large-
and small-scale research studies. In one Canadian study findings show a positive impact
of UDL on reducing student stress, improving confidence, and changing attitudes towards
their learning [23]. In the USA, an evaluation of UDL projects in Montgomery County
Public schools [24] found evidence of varying degrees of positive impacts of UDL practices
on students’ independence in learning and engagement depending on grade level, pro-
cesses, and student subgroups. This reflects the findings of another study exploring UDL
implementation in six local education agencies across five U.S. states [25]. This small-scale
study reported that all educational professionals interviewed observed UDL benefits to
students that included improved test scores, improved motivation, and interest in learning,
and being excited about school and learning [25].
In one position paper focusing on student outcomes, Landin and Schirmer (2020) listed
increased student engagement as a result of teachers respecting students’ needs, allowing
students to succeed on their own terms by offering them choices in how to demonstrate
their understanding in ways that work best for them, improving peer collaboration and
cultural inclusiveness through valuing students’ unique interests, and enabling students
to communicate through mediums that suit their learning profile through developing
autonomy and culturally responsive learning [13]. Similarly, a content analysis of the
thirty-one UDL checkpoints concluded that applying UDL principles, guidelines, and
checkpoints would support students in building deeper knowledge about how they learn
best, thus enabling them to build on their learning processes [26].
Other studies focus on the impact of UDL for specific subject areas or based on specific
characteristics of students. In one study on emergent-literacy development, the findings
suggest that UDL benefits every student regardless of ability or need because the content
and learning is enhanced for every emerging-literacy learner through providing students
with a variety of materials and learning formats [27]. When putting forward the case for
UDL in physical education, Liebernman (2017) noted the reality that students do not want
to be different or given special treatment [28]. Thus, if a teacher provides every student with
the same options, then no one will stand out or feel marginalised. Additionally, it means
that every student is engaged. This potential for engagement was also evidenced in a study
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 4 of 11

on UDL-designed learning environments for online literacy programmes for students with
intellectual disabilities [29]. Findings from classroom observations and teacher and student
interviews suggested clear advantages for students with intellectual disabilities as they
were able to engage in the UDL environment that was designed to provide meaningful
interactions between peers based on age-appropriate content by optimising student choice
and autonomy and providing support and challenge [29].

6. Professional Learning and Practice

The position teachers take and how they approach teaching is a critical factor in suc-
cessfully enacting any initiative to improve inclusive education. The quality and strength
of learning, teaching and assessment, leadership, and curriculum in schools is dependent
on the vision, commitment, and capacity of the teachers who bring the curriculum to life.
Enacting UDL into practice requires a preparedness to change how we view diversity and
difference and adapt our learning and teaching accordingly. Studies [11,12,27] on teachers’
knowledge, confidence, and readiness to enact UDL revealed that not all mainstream
teachers, at primary and second-level, had a comprehensive knowledge and understand-
ing of UDL—an opinion shared by Edyburn (2010) who questioned how teachers could
implement a construct that they could not define [30].
Other studies have examined the barriers to implementing UDL for teachers (It is
acknowledged that the countries referenced here are at different stages in their inclusive
education and UDL process and the data presented should be considered in this context.).
Alquraini and Rao’s (2020) survey of 131 Saudi Arabian teachers revealed that challenges
and barriers to teacher readiness to enact UDL included lack of teachers’ knowledge and
belief in UDL [27]. Results revealed that 50 per cent of respondents did not know much
about UDL, 61 per cent had no UDL training, and 75 per cent were not practicing UDL
in their classrooms. Results also indicated a lack of teacher collaboration, particularly
between mainstream and special education teachers [27]. This is in contrast to studies
that reported experiences of collaboration for UDL planning and teaching [31,32]. For
example, Smith et al. (2017) noted collaborative partnerships as an effective resource,
particularly for using technology resources [32] while participants in Reynor’s (2020) study
reported speaking with the special education teacher before their placement and asking
the class teacher more questions than in previous placements to gain a better awareness
of student diversity, differences, and challenges [31]. Teacher confidence also appears to
play an important role in UDL implementation. In Capp’s (2020) survey of ninety-seven
Australian primary and second-level teachers, he found that primary teachers were, in
general, more confident than second-level teachers about implementing UDL [12]. Of note,
is that both primary and second-level teachers were least confident engaging with principle
one, providing multiple means of engagement, and with guidelines and checkpoints in
the other two principles that related to engaging students. Conversely, they were most
confident providing students with multiple means of representation [12]. This could be
because this principle can be considered to be about teacher choice in how they present
their lessons and content compared with principles one and three where student voice
and agency come to the fore. These findings contrast somewhat with an Irish study of
UDL in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) which showed that some of the twenty, fourth-
year student teachers’ participating were confused by the principle of multiple means of
representation and found the UDL guidelines difficult to follow at times with too much
information to process [31]. Both studies found that primary, second-level, and pre-service
teachers showed varying levels of confidence in relation to the underpinning principles,
guidelines, and checkpoints of UDL [12,31]. Furthermore, teachers in the studies continued
to reference differentiation and it appears that there may have been confusion about their
meanings, that they were using the terms inter-changeably, or that UDL was understood as
a differentiation model.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 5 of 11

7. Supporting Teachers’ Learning for UDL

Moving away from thinking in terms of ability and disability and the traditional
practice of retrospective differentiation to proactive planning for variability requires a
change in teachers’ mindsets about difference, diversity, equity, and inclusion. For this
change to be successful and affect change in practice, teachers need to be supported through
effective professional learning. Recent studies on professional learning have focused on
professional learning to develop more inclusive classrooms. In Ireland, findings show that
student teachers respond positively to using UDL lesson plan templates, for students that
struggle with their work but also in creating an awareness of high achieving students where
there may not be adequate levels of challenge [31]. For Greek student teachers, findings
also show how exposure to UDL with a focus on representation led to the development of
more inclusive lesson plans which improved the learning process for every student [33].
Similarly, an examination of an undergraduate teaching course with a focus on using UDL
to develop inclusive lesson plans found improvements in the lesson planning process after
the training [34]. Both studies established that the training improved the lesson planning
process across all three UDL principles.
Regarding enactment and practice, studies show that professional learning directly
impacts on UDL implementation in teacher practice. One study examining the outcomes
of UDL and universal design for transition (UDT) training to fifty-two student and prac-
ticing teachers found that many of the participants embedded UDL and UDT into their
lessons after the course [35]. This was because the participants could use them in activi-
ties for students in mainstream as well as students with special educational needs (SEN).
Specifically, participants reported that UDL and UDT approaches provided them with
the opportunity to include every student in their learning activities and that element of
these approaches lent themselves to making learning meaningful and engaging for every
student [35]. This reflects other findings on the impact of a weeklong UDL summer course
on teacher practice [14]. A comparison of teachers who attended the course with teachers
who did not, found that, overall, those who attended performed higher in UDL implemen-
tation than those who did not. This included improvements in planning, establishing goals,
identifying, and removing barriers to learning, and providing enhanced comprehension
opportunities to students through the UDL guidelines [14].

8. Challenges to Enacting UDL

The lack of evidence-based research into the effectiveness of UDL, particularly in
relation to student outcomes, is perhaps the most significant challenge to promoting and
therefore enacting UDL as an effective approach to inclusive education practices. Research
by Edyburn (2005; 2020) has informed much of this debate in recent years as, although he
asserts that UDL holds considerable promise, he argues that there are challenges to translat-
ing UDL theory into practice [17,30]. He believes that once educators understand what the
principles are and look like, they are left to figure out how to apply UDL themselves [30].
Another, related, issue highlighted by Edyburn (2005; 2020) is the lack of evidence-based
research validating UDL. He argues, “there is urgent and important work to do to capture
the potential of UDL in meaningful applications to help all students access, engage and
succeed in meeting grade-level expectations in a global society” [30] (p. 341). A final issue
raised by Edyburn (2020) is the tendency to link the framework with special education
some of which he cautions against given its applicability to every student instead of those
perceived to need additional supports [30].
Other research on UDL lesson planning and practice also indicates several disad-
vantages and barriers associated with its approach [13,31,36], namely, a lack of resources,
time, knowledge, support, and professional learning in UDL at ITE and practicing teacher
stages [13,35]. These studies highlight how planning and facilitating inclusive learning
experiences using UDL can be complicated [13,30] and negotiating the guidelines and
finding ways to remove some of these barriers to learning can be difficult [31]. Despite
these challenges, many of these studies conclude that with these supports, and despite the
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 6 of 11

initial time involved, the results of UDL outweigh the effort and that “without a doubt,
UDL holds considerable promise” [30] (p. 40).
The literature to date has limitations due to a lack of evidence-based research, the
small-scale approach many research papers have taken, and the contextual dimensions
of each study, meaning their findings may not be generalizable [35,36]. However, context
is a cornerstone of UDL and therefore its potential must be viewed through the lens of
students’ variability, the school climate, and the broader demographics of a school or
institution. Furthermore, national contexts differ in their societal values, existing policies,
and education systems more generally and this must also be considered when translating
UDL from its origins in the United States.

9. Universal Design for Learning in the Irish Education Context

Universal Design for Learning is a relatively new concept in Ireland with the potential
benefits of UDL beginning to appear in policy documents at both further and higher
education levels [37]. This work has been supported by organisations (including the
Association of Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) and the further education and
training authority (SOLAS)) who are seeking to respond to increasing diverse student
populations through supporting educators in developing inclusive practices. However, as
Quellett (2004) noted, significantly more needs to be done in these institutions to provide
authentic access, participation, and engagement in high quality learning and teaching for
every student [38]. Specifically, there is little evidence that UDL is part of programmes
of ITE in Ireland where student teachers could gain an understanding of UDL as part of
their preparation for learning and teaching in primary and second-level classrooms [31,37].
While an examination of Irish teacher support services suggests professional learning for
UDL is slowly developing (UDL is either referenced or included in aspects of provision
by organisations such as The Professional Development Service for Teachers, the National
Council for Special Education, and Junior Cycle for Teachers), this is at an optional level. No
baseline of teacher UDL practice in Ireland (with the exception of Devitt et al., 2021 [39]) has
been established. However, there has been a notable increase in online forums, workshops,
and national and international lectures on the topic of UDL in Ireland in the last three years.
Many of these events are heavily attended by teachers, particularly at second-level, and
representatives from teacher organisations that provide professional development.

10. The Irish Education System

The Irish education system is comprised of a mainstream primary and second-level
education system and a parallel special school system. Compulsory education begins at
age six, although the majority of students attend infant classes by the age of four and five.
Additionally, the Early Childhood Care and Education Programme (ECCE) provides two
free years of preschool education for children prior to commencing primary education.
At second-level, students normally take a nationally standardised examination at the end
of lower secondary which is followed by an optional ‘Transition Year’, and a two-year
upper secondary programme, at the end of which students take the nationally standardised
Leaving Certificate examination.
Special education in Ireland is based on a model of a continuum of supports. While the
policy is to ensure the maximum possible inclusion for children with SEN in mainstream
settings, depending on the child’s assessed level of need in education, children may attend
special classes within mainstream schools and special schools. Though special schools
provide primary and post-primary education until the age of eighteen, special schools fall
under the remit of the primary sector. There are currently 134 special schools in Ireland
with approximately 8407 students enrolled in 2020/2021 [6,40]. Special classes fall under
the remit of the school they are in. In the school year 2020/2021, there were 1836 special
classes across primary and post-primary schools in Ireland, and each class can have a
maximum of 6 students enrolled [41].
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 7 of 11

11. UDL within the Special Education Sector

Until recently, differentiation has been the method of choice in Ireland for teachers
wishing to include students with SEN. However, many argue, that the disability is within
the curriculum in addition to the learning and teaching environment, not the student [8].
Thus, in recent years, education debates have begun to focus on moving towards more
equitable systems of education and the use of innovative pedagogies such as UDL to
enhance the school experiences of every student [6,41]. While there is a firm commitment
to inclusive education at a policy level [5,42], in practice, the funding and provision of
special education operates parallel to the mainstream education system [43,44]. This
anomaly was further highlighted in the recent publication and open consultation by the
National Council for Special Education (NCSE) moving towards a more inclusive system
of education [6]. Using inputs from delegates from New Brunswick, Canada, and Portugal
who have moved towards models of greater or full inclusion that are informed by UDL,
the consultations suggest that students with SEN could, and perhaps should, be educated
with their peers in the mainstream. However, it noted that Irish schools, under the current
structures, are not ready to successfully enact such a move. Principally, NCSE asserted the
need for teachers to be competent in enacting inclusive practices such as UDL so that they
have the capacity to teach in diverse classrooms with the full range of student variability.
As legislation developed around special and inclusive education, Ireland’s National
Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) were tasked with acknowledging these
changes and providing advice, guidelines, and directives to teachers on delivering sup-
ports to students with SEN. By reviewing these documents through the lens of UDL, some
interesting patterns emerge. At the same time that CAST were beginning to articulate
their concept of UDL, the NCCA published a seminal paper, Special Educational Needs:
Curriculum Issues [45], outlining future curriculum developments in Ireland. Although
not written from a UDL perspective, this paper is significant as it emphasised that the
principles underlying education for students with SEN are the same principles that un-
derpin education for every student. Furthermore, the terminology used in this NCCA
paper sets the direction of inclusive language used in curriculum policy, with language
such as ’pathways’, ‘individualised programmes’, and ‘whole-school approach’ appearing
throughout later NCCA and NCSE documents on special education [6,46,47]

12. UDL within Second-Level Education

12.1. Junior Cycle
UDL is, perhaps, most associated with the recent review of the lower secondary
curriculum and introduction of the Framework for Junior Cycle in 2015 [7]. For the first
time, there is explicit mention of UD in curriculum design in the Framework which was
specifically designed with the intention of having one curriculum for every student. It
aims to provide “meaningful and valuable learning opportunities for students from all
cultural and social backgrounds and from a wide variety of individual circumstances” [7]
(p. 26). This curriculum framework is based on eight principles, twenty-four statements
of learning, and eight key skills. A unique aspect of the new framework is the choice of
pathways students can take to achieve their Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement (JCPA).
This clearly aligns with the UDL inclusive mindset of multiple means of engagement and
provides greater access to learning for every student. The framework has had a significant
impact on meaningful engagement in learning for students with intellectual disabilities.
This is provided through the options of Level 1 Learning Programmes (L1LPs) and Level
2 Learning Programmes (L2LPs) which exist as part of the overall Framework for Junior
Cycle.
The landmark introduction of learning outcomes linked to student expectations is
perhaps where UDL is most prevalent. The principles, statements, and skills are given
expression through the learning outcomes [7] and these learning outcomes are flexibly
designed to allow them to be contextualised and taught in various ways depending on the
school and students. This approach gives teachers more autonomy to provide multiple
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 8 of 11

means of representation which were less possible with the prescriptive learning objectives
of previous curriculum frameworks, further enhancing access and engagement for their
students.
Another innovative component of the framework is the introduction of some as-
sessment choices for students. Depending on pathway choices, students undertake a
combination of formative assessments including Classroom Based Assessments (CBAs)
throughout the junior cycle, and summative state examinations, at the end. The nature
of CBAs and other formative assessments embodies UDL’s multiple means of action and
expression as they allow teachers and students the autonomy to co-design the assessment
brief and activity. In this way, students can engage with assessment through a medium that
will best enable them to demonstrate and communicate their knowledge, understanding,
skills, and values.

12.2. Senior Cycle

Senior cycle is currently under review in Ireland. Following extensive research and
consultation, it is envisaged that NCCA will present its findings in an advisory report
to the Minister for Education in 2021. The review findings indicate an appetite among
students, parents, and teachers for greater flexibility in subject and programme choices and
more learner-centred approaches in teaching, learning, and assessment at senior cycle [48].
The research highlights the extent to which stakeholders believe that the current senior
cycle provision is too narrowly focused on students’ academic ability. This means many
students, including those with SEN and those who would benefit from vocational or
apprenticeship options, are left without pathways. The most recent Senior Cycle Review
report published [48] shows that there is a keen focus on flexible pathways and assessment
in a future curriculum design.

13. UDL within Early Childhood and Primary Education

In recent years, there are some early indications of the introduction of UDL in the
early childhood and primary education sector. In early childhood education, recent pol-
icy documents recognise the growing social, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity in
Ireland in recent years and both the Aistear curriculum [49] and the Access and Inclusion
Model [50] emphasise the need to be responsive to the changing groups of children each
year and their abilities, preferences, and needs. At primary level, there are clear indicators
of a UDL mindset emerging in curriculum documents. For example, it was explicitly stated
that a new Primary Maths Curriculum (PMC) that promotes the principles of equity and
access for children with a diverse range of abilities would be designed in line with the
principles of UDL [51]. This specification is still in a development phase. In 2019, a new
Primary Language Curriculum (PLC) was developed and introduced to schools. Informed
by research commissioned by NCCA that references UDL, the PLC incorporates a UDL
approach and is the first part of the Irish primary curriculum to be redeveloped since
1999 [52]. Similar to the Framework for Junior Cycle, the PLC marks a significant move in
primary education away from content objectives to a learning outcomes-based curriculum.
Progression continua were also developed to support every student in progressing towards
the intended learning.
Perhaps the clearest indication of a UDL approach thus far is evident in the recent
publication of the Draft Primary Curriculum Framework, of which the PLC and PMC
are part [53]. Similar to the Framework for Junior Cycle, the Draft Primary Curriculum
Framework marks a significant move in primary education away from content objectives to
a learning outcomes-based curriculum. Furthermore, it recognises teachers as ‘curriculum
makers’ who use these broad learning outcomes within the wider framework of the
curriculum vision, principles, and subjects to design a curriculum that is contextual and
appropriate for the students in their learning community. Its statement that “in the context
of a universally designed curriculum, inclusive education and diversity encourages a
move away from thinking in terms of ability and disability to thinking about variability,
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 9 of 11

competency and opportunity” [53] (p. 20) indicates a commitment to supporting every
student and sets the direction of curriculum experiences in a redeveloped primary school
curriculum that will draw on the principles of UDL to provide every student with equity
of access, engagement and challenge in their learning. The consultation for this Primary
Framework is currently ongoing and it is expected to be a number of years before the
redeveloped curriculum is introduced to schools.

14. Discussion
The exploration of recent curriculum developments in Ireland indicates a shift in
mindset towards UDL as a framework for inclusive education in Irish schools. This pa-
per finds that aspects of UDL are threaded across the curriculum principles that espouse
engagement, participation and relevance, partnership, and choice and flexibility, from
primary to senior cycle. The potential of UDL to increase student engagement is demon-
strated in the most established of these, the junior cycle, where the three UDL principles
are reflected in different aspects of the framework. However, this paper illustrates that
UDL may be most evident in the new Primary Curriculum Framework. As the newest
curriculum development, lessons from junior cycle reform have been learnt. Furthermore,
the absence of a high stakes state examination at primary level may increase acceptance of
UDL among practitioners.
In line with research internationally, this paper finds a lack of empirical research to
support the potential of UDL in improving student outcomes which it argues will have
implications for the translation of UDL curriculum initiatives into practice. Establishing
an evidence base for UDL is imperative for policy change and development with a clear
link required between the relevance and positive outcomes of UDL to inclusive learning,
teaching, and assessment in Ireland. This reflects the research into teacher learning and
practice which shows that when teachers have the opportunity to engage in professional
learning for UDL and inclusion and experience the positive impact of UDL on their students,
they are more likely to embed UDL into their practice [35].
Despite UDL gaining some momentum in Irish curriculum documents, professional
learning opportunities for UDL remain limited at ITE and practicing teacher levels. A
greater understanding of UDL at ITE is required to establish the effect of UDL on student
teachers’ knowledge, skills, and practice in the classroom. Furthermore, a systematic
approach to UDL in the provision of all professional learning programmes could enhance
teacher capacity in increasingly diverse school contexts. However, this paper argues that
UDL enactment cannot be the sole responsibility of teachers. Without clear policy and
messaging at a national level that supports effective professional learning for all teachers,
there are concerns that UDL may become another ‘educational fad’ associated solely with
special education, as noted by Edyburn (2020). Embedding UDL in ITE and professional
learning programmes will ensure an awareness of the role of UDL amongst all educators.
Perhaps what is required is a roadmap for systematic enactment of UDL as a pedagogical
framework for every learner and teacher.
Education in Ireland is a critical stage in review and redevelopment across all sectors.
Given ongoing discussions around moving to a ‘full inclusion model’ in Irish schools, this
is perhaps an opportune time to proactively embed UDL as part of policy and curriculum
design as well as part of learning and teaching design and practice.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.F. and J.B.; methodology, M.F. and J.B.; formal analysis,
M.F. and J.B.; investigation, M.F.; resources, M.F. and J.B.; data curation, J.B.; writing—original draft
preparation, M.F.; writing—review and editing, M.F. and J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 10 of 11

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. UNESCO. Towards Inclusion in Education: Status, Trends and Challenges. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 Years on United
Nations; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2020.
2. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
3. UN General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Resolution/Adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January
2007, A/RES/61/106; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
4. United Nations. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; UN General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 1989.
5. Government of Ireland. Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004; Government of Ireland: Dublin, Ireland, 2004.
6. NCSE. National Council for Special Education. Policy Advice on Special Schools and Classes. An Inclusive Education for an Inclusive
Society? Progress Report; NCSE: Trim, Ireland, 2019.
7. DES. Framework for Junior Cycle; Department of Education and Skills: Dublin, Ireland, 2015.
8. Meyer, A.; Rose, D.H.; Gordon, D. Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice; CAST Professional Publishing: Boston, MA,
USA, 2014.
9. CAST. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, Version 2.2 [Graphic Organiser]; CAST: Wakefield, MA, USA, 2018.
10. Chardin, M.; Novak, K. Equity by Design Delivering on the Power and Promise of UDL; Corwin Press Inc.: London, UK, 2021.
11. Capp, M.Y. The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. Int. J. Incl.
Educ. 2017, 21, 791–807. [CrossRef]
12. Capp, M.J. Teacher confidence to implement the principles, guidelines, and checkpoints of universal design for learning. Int. J.
Incl. Educ. 2018, 24, 706–720. [CrossRef]
13. Landin, J.; Schirmer, P. Teaching at-risk students using UDL: Cure or curse? J. Higher Educ. Theory Pract. 2020, 20, 24–29.
14. Craig, S.L.; Smith, S.J.; Frey, B. Professional development with Universal Design for Learning: Supporting teachers as learners to
increase the implementation of UDL. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2019, 1–16. [CrossRef]
15. Fritzgerald, A. Antiracism and Universal Design for Learning: Building Expressways to Success; CAST: Wakefield, MA, USA, 2021.
16. Posey, A.; Novak, K. Unlearning: Changing Your Beliefs and Your Classroom With UDL; CAST: Wakefield, MA, USA, 2020.
17. Edyburn, D.L. Universal Design for Learning. Spec. Educ. Technol. Pract. 2005, 7, 16–22.
18. Robinson, D.E.; Wizer, D.R. Universal Design for Learning and the Quality Matters Guidelines for the design and implementation
of online learning event. Int. J. Technol. Teach. Learn. 2016, 12, 17–32.
19. Rao, K.; Ok, M.W.; Bryant, B.R. A Review of Research on Universal Design Educational Models. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2014, 35,
153–166. [CrossRef]
20. Mangiatordi, A.; Serenelli, F. Universal design for learning: A meta-analytic review of 80 abstracts from peer reviewed journals.
Res. Educ. Media 2013, 5, 109–118.
21. Edyburn, D.L. Ten Years Later: Would You Recognize Universal Design for Learning If You Saw It? Interv. Sch. Clin. 2021, 56,
308–309. [CrossRef]
22. UDL-BOE Blended Learning in Schools: A Universal Design Approach. Available online: [Link] (accessed
on 5 July 2021).
23. Katz, J.; Sokal, L. Universal Design for Learning as a bridge to inclusion: A qualitative report of student voices. Int. J. Whole Sch.
2016, 12, 37–63.
24. Cooper-Martin, E.; Wolanin, N. Evaluation of the Universal Design for Learning Projects; Montgomery County Public Schools, Office
of Accountability: Montgomery, AL, USA, 2014.
25. Sopko, K.M. Universal Design for Learning: Implementation in six local education agencies. inForum 2008, 1–28.
26. García-Campos, M.-D.; Canabal, C.; Alba-Pastor, C. Executive functions in universal design for learning: Moving towards
inclusive education. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2018, 24, 660–674. [CrossRef]
27. Alquraini, T.A.; Rao, S.M. Assessing teachers’ knowledge, readiness, and needs to implement Universal Design for Learning in
classrooms in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2020, 24, 103–114. [CrossRef]
28. Lieberman, L.J. The need for Universal Design for Learning. Recreation and Dance 2017, 88, 5–7. [CrossRef]
29. Coyne, P.; Evans, M.; Karger, J. Use of a UDL literacy environment by middle school students with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. Intellect. Dev. Disability. 2017, 55, 4–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Edyburn, D.L. Would you recognise Universal Design for Learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the
second decade of UDL. Learn. Disability. Q. 2020, 33, 33–41. [CrossRef]
31. Reynor, E. Developing inclusive education in Ireland: The case for UDL in Initial Teacher Education. In Universal Access through
Inclusive Design: International Perspectives on UDL; Gronseth, S.L., Dalton, E.M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp.
258–267.
32. Smith, C.L.L.; King, L.H.; Williams, J.B.; Metcalf, D.; Rhys Myrick Potts, K. Evaluating pedagogy and practice of Universal Design
for Learning in public schools. Except. Educ. Int. 2017, 27, 1–16.
33. Tzivinikou, S. Universal Design for Learning application in higher education: A Greek paradigm. Probl. Educ. 21st Century 2014,
60, 156–166.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 341 11 of 11

34. Navarro, S.B.; Zeveras, P.; Gesa, R.F.; Sampson, D. Developing teachers’ competencies for designing inclusive learning experiences.
Educ. Technol. Soc. 2016, 19, 17–27.
35. Scott, L.; Bruno, L.; Gokita, T.; Thoma, C.A. Teacher candidates’ abilities to develop universal design for learning and universal
design for transition lesson plans. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2019, 1–15. [CrossRef]
36. Smith, S.J.; Rao, K.; Lowrey, K.A.; Gardner, J.E.; Moore, E.; Coy, K.; Marino, M.; Wojcik, B. Recommendations for a national
research agenda in UDL: Outcomes from the UDL-IRN preconference on research. J. Disability Stud. 2019, 30, 174–185. [CrossRef]
37. Drudy, S.; Kinsella, W. Developing an inclusive system in a rapidly changing European society. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2009, 13, 647–663.
[CrossRef]
38. Quellett, M. Faculty development and universal instructional design. Equity Excell. Educ. 2004, 37, 137–144.
39. Devitt, A.; Bray, A.; Banks, J.; Ní Chorcora, E. Teaching and Learning During School Closures: Lessons Learned. Irish Second-Level
Teacher Perspectives; Trinity College Dublin: Dublin, Ireland, 2020.
40. Education, D. Key Statistics. Available online: [Link]
Schools/primary/ (accessed on 5 July 2021).
41. Shevlin, M.; Banks, J. Inclusion at a crossroads: Dismantling Ireland’s system of special education. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 161.
[CrossRef]
42. NCSE. Inclusive Education Framework A Guide for Schools on the Inclusion of Pupils with Special Educational Needs; NCSE: Trim,
Ireland, 2011.
43. Banks, J. A Winning Formula? Funding Inclusive Education in Ireland. In Resourcing Inclusive Education (International Perspectives
on Inclusive Education; Goldan, J., Lambrecht, J., Loreman, T., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2021; pp. 7–19.
44. Banks, J. Examining the Cost of Special Education. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education; Sharma, U., Ed.; Oxford University
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
45. NCCA. Special Educational Needs: Curriculum Issues: Discussion Paper; NCCA: Dublin, Ireland, 1999.
46. NCCA (ND). Level 1 and Level 2 Programmes. Available online: [Link]
programmes/ (accessed on 5 July 2021).
47. NCSE. Delivery for Students with Special Educational Needs A Better and More Equitable Way; NCSE: Meath, Ireland, 2014.
48. NCCA. Senior Cycle Review Draft Public Consultation Report; NCCA: Dublin, Ireland, 2019.
49. NCCA. Early Childhood Aistear. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 5 July 2021).
50. DCYA. Access and Inclusion Model (AIM). Available online: [Link] (accessed on 5 July 2021).
51. NCCA. Background Paper and Brief. for the Development of a New Primary Mathematics Curriculum; NCCA: Dublin, Ireland, 2016.
52. Kennedy, E.; Dunphy, E.; Dwyer, B.; Hayes, G.; McPhillips, T.; Marsh, J.; O’Connor, M.; Shiel, G. Literacy in Early Childhood and
Primary Education (3–8 Years); NCCA: Dublin, Ireland, 2012.
53. NCCA. Draft Primary Curriculum Framework; NCCA: Dublin, Ireland, 2020.
Summary

This article, "Universal Design for Learning: Is It Gaining Momentum in Irish Education?" by
Margaret Flood and Joanne Banks , examines the extent to which Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) is gaining traction in Irish primary and second-level education through an analysis of
curriculum policy.

Key Points:

• UDL as a Pedagogical Approach: UDL is presented as a key pedagogical framework

promoting inclusive and equitable education by addressing student diversity and the
traditional "one size fits all" curriculum. It assumes diversity in the student population
and offers flexible guidelines for how students learn and demonstrate their knowledge.

• Three Principles of UDL: The core of UDL consists of three principles that educators
should provide:

o Multiple means of engagement: Designing flexible learning contexts so every

student can find their path, participate meaningfully, build capacity, and stay
motivated. This principle focuses on the teacher designing experiences students
can connect with.

o Multiple means of representation: Presenting information through various

media and methods to support diverse learners in accessing, engaging with,
interpreting, and understanding content.

o Multiple means of action and expression: Allowing students choice and

flexibility in demonstrating their knowledge, understanding, and skills through
continuous formative and summative assessment.

• UDL in Irish Education Policy: UDL is slowly and implicitly emerging in Irish education
policy at a national level.

o Junior Cycle: The Framework for Junior Cycle (2015) explicitly mentions
Universal Design in curriculum design, aiming for one curriculum for every
student and providing various pathways for students to achieve their Junior
Cycle Profile of Achievement (JCPA). The introduction of learning outcomes and
assessment choices (like Classroom Based Assessments) aligns with UDL's
principles of representation and action/expression.

o Early Childhood and Primary Education: There are early indications of UDL's
introduction in these sectors. The new Primary Maths Curriculum (PMC) is being
designed in line with UDL principles. The Primary Language Curriculum (PLC),
informed by research referencing UDL, also incorporates a UDL approach and is
learning-outcomes based. The Draft Primary Curriculum Framework explicitly
commits to UDL principles, moving towards thinking about variability,
competency, and opportunity rather than ability and disability.

o Senior Cycle: The ongoing review indicates an appetite for greater flexibility in
subject and program choices and more learner-centered approaches, with a
keen focus on flexible pathways and assessment, aligning with UDL principles.
 • Professional Learning for Teachers: Supporting teachers through effective
professional learning is crucial for successful UDL enactment. Studies show positive
responses from student teachers using UDL lesson plan templates and improved lesson
planning after UDL training. Professional learning directly impacts UDL implementation
in teacher practice, with participants embedding UDL into their lessons and finding it
inclusive and engaging for all students.

Main Arguments:

• Growing Momentum, but Implicit: The article argues that UDL is slowly and implicitly
gaining momentum in Irish education policy, particularly within curriculum frameworks
at primary and second levels.

• Need for Explicit Commitment and Research: Despite its emerging presence, the
paper argues for a more explicit commitment to UDL as part of ongoing curriculum
reform and Ireland's broader inclusive education agenda. There's a call for more
evidence-based research on UDL's effectiveness, especially regarding student
outcomes, to support policy change and development.

• Teacher Capacity is Key: The success of inclusive education initiatives, including UDL,
depends heavily on teachers' vision, commitment, and capacity. Enacting UDL requires
a shift in mindset about diversity and a preparedness to adapt teaching.

Contrasts/Comparisons:

• UDL vs. Differentiation: Until recently in Ireland, differentiation was the primary
method for including students with Special Educational Needs (SEN). The article
highlights a shift towards UDL, arguing that the "disability is within the curriculum"
rather than the student. Some studies suggest confusion among teachers, using UDL
and differentiation interchangeably.

• Higher Education vs. Primary/Second-Level: UDL in Ireland has traditionally been

focused on the higher education sector, with less discussion about its role in primary
and second-level education.

• Teacher Confidence Across Principles: Capp (2020) found that Australian primary and
second-level teachers were generally less confident with the "multiple means of
engagement" principle and most confident with "multiple means of representation". This
contrasts somewhat with an Irish study where some student teachers were confused by
"multiple means of representation".

• Teacher Collaboration: Some studies reported collaborative partnerships as an

effective resource for UDL implementation, especially with technology. This is in
contrast to a Saudi Arabian study by Alquraini and Rao (2020) which revealed a lack of
teacher collaboration.

Limitations:

• Lack of Evidence-Based Research: A significant limitation is the scarcity of evidence-

based research on UDL's effectiveness, particularly concerning student outcomes.
Edyburn (2005; 2020) highlights the challenge of translating UDL theory into practice
without clear application guidance and the need for more research on its impact.
 • Small-Scale Studies and Generalizability: Much of the existing research is small-
scale, and its findings may not be generalizable due to contextual dimensions.

• Contextual Differences: The article notes that national contexts differ in societal
values, existing policies, and education systems, which must be considered when
applying UDL from its U.S. origins.

Gaps:

• Research on Student Outcomes: There is a notable gap in research focusing on the

impact of UDL on sustained student learning outcomes, not just teacher practice.

• Baseline of Teacher UDL Practice in Ireland: With the exception of Devitt et al.
cite_start , there is no established baseline of teacher UDL practice in Ireland.

• UDL in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) in Ireland: There is little evidence that UDL is a
systematic part of ITE programs in Ireland, where student teachers could gain
foundational understanding.

Worthwhile Points for an Essay:

• Policy-Practice Gap: The article highlights a disconnect between policy commitment to

inclusive education and practical implementation, especially concerning UDL. This
offers a strong point for discussing how educational policies translate (or fail to
translate) into classroom practice.

• Teacher Professional Development as a Lever for Change: The emphasis on

professional learning as a critical factor in successful UDL enactment provides a
compelling argument for the importance of ongoing teacher training and support in
promoting inclusive pedagogies.

• The "One Size Fits All" Curriculum Challenge: The article frames UDL as a response to
the traditional "one size fits all" curriculum. This can be a central theme for discussing
curriculum design and its impact on student diversity.

• UDL Beyond Special Education: Edyburn (2020) cautions against exclusively linking
UDL with special education, stressing its applicability to every student. This is a crucial
point for an essay advocating for UDL's universal application.

• The Importance of Explicit Policy and a "Roadmap": The call for clear national policy
and a "roadmap for systematic enactment of UDL" suggests a needed top-down
approach to complement grassroots efforts, which could be a strong argument in an
essay on educational reform.

• Momentum at an "Opportune Time": The ongoing review and redevelopment of

education in Ireland, coupled with discussions about a "full inclusion model," presents
an "opportune time" to embed UDL proactively. This offers a forward-looking
perspective on educational change.