Kappa Delta Pi Record

ISSN: 0022-8958 (Print) 2163-1611 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ukdr20

Removing Instructional Barriers with UDL

Barbara S. Meier & Kirstin A. Rossi

To cite this article: Barbara S. Meier & Kirstin A. Rossi (2020) Removing Instructional Barriers with
UDL, Kappa Delta Pi Record, 56:2, 82-88, DOI: 10.1080/00228958.2020.1729639

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2020.1729639

Published online: 21 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1042

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ukdr20
 Kappa Delta Pi Record, 56: 82–88, 2020
Copyright © Kappa Delta Pi
ISSN: 0022-8958 print/2163-1611 online
DOI: 10.1080/00228958.2020.1729639

REMOVING INSTRUCTIONAL
BARRIERS WITH UDL
by Barbara S. Meier and Kirstin A. Rossi

82 KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD • APRIL–JUNE 2020

 Abstract
The instructional barrier matrix can support teachers in identifying student’s diverse needs.
Combined with Universal Design for Learning, the matrix gives all students access to engaged
learning, and the planning process for teachers becomes proactive, time-saving, and effective.
Key words: curriculum instruction, inclusive education, Universal Design for Learning
reform

B
ecause learners come to school learners (i.e., individual strengths and challenges)
with different backgrounds, is systematic and predictable, and the learners’
experiences, and learning capacity to engage with and learn the content is
abilities, the traditional context dependent. Therefore, each year educa-
one-size-fits-all curriculum tors can expect similar learners in their classrooms
is not adequate to address (e.g., some will struggle to decode, some will be
the instructional needs of all above-level readers), but how well a given stu-
,
students (Coyne, Kame enui, dent learns will depend on the learning task he
& Carnine, 2007). One curricular framework, or she is expected to use to access and learn the
proposed to accommodate this range of content (e.g., read a book, watch a video). After a
learners and support all students in accessing short review of UDL, this article introduces an in-
and learning curriculum, is Universal Design structional barrier matrix that serves as a blueprint
for Learning (UDL, Rose & Strangman, 2007). to help teachers effectively implement UDL while
In this framework, educators proactively and considering students’ diverse instructional needs
intentionally address barriers in the curriculum— and barriers to learning in the classroom setting.
such as barriers within goals, methods, materials,
and assessments—that make learning more Universal Design for Learning
difficult, or even unachievable, for some students. The UDL framework promotes learning for all Barbara S. Meier is an
To address barriers, educators focus on the students through flexible instruction that ad- Associate Professor in the
Special Education Depart-
diverse instructional needs of their students dresses the four means for learning (i.e., goals, ment at the University of
when planning lessons and on building in methods, materials, and assessment) and the Wisconsin–Eau Claire. She
instructional supports based on the three UDL three principles of UDL (i.e., multiple means of teaches special needs read-
ing, technology integration,
principles of multiple means of (a) engagement, engagement, representation, and action and and inclusion for elementary
(b) representation, and (c) action and expression. expression; Rose & Gravel, 2010). Focusing on educators. Her research inter-
Tailoring individual instruction for a class of these areas reduces instructional barriers and ests are in UDL and literacy.
Email: [email protected]
30 students is daunting, and individualizing to makes learning attainable for all students (Rose
that level may actually undermine a student’s & Strangman, 2007). UDL is a paradigm shift for Kirstin A. Rossi is an Assis-
self-reliance and initiative (Marshall, 2016). Edy- teachers: Students are no longer thought of as tant Professor at the Univer-
burn (2010) asserted that for UDL to be realized, disabled or unable to learn, but rather the cur- sity of Wisconsin–Eau Claire.
She teaches within the Spe-
teachers have to use some type of blueprint to riculum is understood to inhibit some students cial Education Department in
help them focus on the diversity of the students from accessing and learning content. the Unified Early Childhood
in their classrooms, and thus minimize the need Goals, methods, materials, and as- program. Her research inter-
ests include inclusive practice,
to individualize instruction for each student. sessments. Instruction begins by establishing
language/cultural diversity,
With regard to student diversity, Meyer, Rose, the learning goal. When implementing UDL, and reflection. Email:
and Gordon (2014) noted that variability among the key is to make the goal flexible and clear. [email protected]

KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD • APRIL–JUNE 2020 83

Removing Barriers

‘‘
Allowing students to use a the numbers rather than multiplying them. The

variety of media to demonstrate

teacher then reteaches the correct procedure
for multiplication to address this shortcoming
learning ensures an accurate before students move to independent practice.

assessment of their knowledge. Additionally, teachers need to employ flexible

and varied methods to address each of the three
— BARBARA S. MEIER AND KIRSTIN A. ROSSI UDL principles (Meyer et al., 2014).
The materials component of UDL involves
incorporating a variety of media (e.g., podcast,
video clips, text) during instruction to keep stu-
Specifically, the means (e.g., writing, reading) dents engaged in the learning process and allow
for demonstrating learning is not embedded in them to access and learn the content. Likewise,
the goal (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, allowing students to use a variety of media to
2002). For instance, a traditional goal may state, demonstrate learning ensures an accurate assess-
“Students will write five facts about the moon.” ment of their knowledge. The materials a teacher
However, the UDL goal may be, “Students will incorporates in the lesson must be appropriate
express their knowledge by sharing five facts for the goal and not reduce the learning chal-
about the moon.” Both goals ask the students lenge (Meyer et al., 2014). For instance, when
to demonstrate knowledge about the moon. In the goal is to teach students how to decode
the traditional goal, the learning expectation words, it is inappropriate to use text-to-speech
is clear (i.e., write five facts about the moon), (i.e., software that reads words aloud) during
but it is not flexible because writing is required instruction. Such a choice eliminates learning,
to demonstrate learning. The UDL goal is both because the challenge of decoding is removed
clear and flexible. The learning expectation (i.e., from the lesson. However, if the goal is for
share five facts about the moon) is the same as students to discuss the water cycle, then using
the traditional goal, but the means by which text-to-speech to support students in accessing a
students can express what they have learned science textbook is appropriate. In this case, the
is not incorporated into the goal. Rather, the text-to-speech software allows students to learn
teacher can design alternate ways for students content and engage in the discussion about
to demonstrate what they know (e.g., create a what they learned. Here, using text-to-speech
video, write a paper, draw the moon and label does not diminish the challenge, because the
details). goal is to learn the content and discuss it, not
Methods are the “instructional decisions, to read the textbook.
approaches, procedures, or routines” used Assessments also need to be flexible and
during instruction to help students learn the varied. As mentioned earlier, varying assess-
content (Novak Educational Consulting, 2020, ments allows for a more accurate gauge of
para. 5). These are the initial evidence-based student learning. Students who struggle with
practices that teachers include when develop- writing may demonstrate their learning by giv-
ing the lesson, as well as additional practices ing an oral report, or when writing they may
they incorporate based on monitoring students’ be provided with scaffolds that support their
learning needs throughout the lesson (Meyer writing efforts. Additionally, assessments must
et al., 2014). For instance, when monitoring be both formative (i.e., ongoing throughout
students performing basic multiplication, a the lesson to guide instruction) and summative
teacher notices that many students are adding (i.e., at the end of instruction, often thought of

84 KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD • APRIL–JUNE 2020

 WWW.KDP.ORG

as a unit assessment). Teachers must monitor visuals, videos, peer discussion, and audio all
progress using formative assessments in order to support students’ access to learning content.
recognize and address gaps in learning as they Multiple means of action and ex-
occur (Marshall, 2016). pression. The principle of multiple means of
Goals, methods, materials, and assessments action and expression relates to how students
are each elements of the curriculum teachers demonstrate their learning using a variety of
must address so that students are able to access methods and media (e.g., oral presentation,
and learn the content. Teachers can address video, essay; Israel, Ribuffo, & Smith, 2014;
these curricular elements through the three Meyer et al., 2014). Meyer and colleagues
principles of UDL, discussed next. (2014) emphasized that teachers also need to
Multiple means of engagement. The guide students to become expert learners by
principle of multiple means of engagement calls developing their executive function skills (i.e.,
for students to attend to learning tasks that goal setting, self-monitoring progress, adapting
attract, motivate, and engage them (Meyer et learning strategies). For example, when given a
al., 2014). Meyer and colleagues (2014) ex- rubric, students can self-monitor their progress
plained that this engagement can be achieved in meeting the learning criteria while creating
by addressing student interest, providing op- an oral presentation, collage, essay, or video.
tions for sustaining effort and persistence, and The UDL principles take into account learner
helping students learn to self-regulate. For variability, each individual student’s strengths
instance, in a multistep assignment, students and challenges. Therefore, students who were
can use a checklist to identify which steps they initially considered in the margins of learning
have completed and which step comes next. (i.e., struggling or advanced) are now seen as
This practice supports students in becoming a predictable part of student variability in the
self-regulated learners by assisting in their classroom (Meyer et al., 2014). The UDL frame-
independent completion of complex assign- work was developed to guide teachers in lesson
ments. Another way to achieve engagement is design through the selection of learning tools
by providing students with choices about how and methods (Meyer et al., 2014) to address
they access content (e.g., reading, manipula- the needs of these various learners in the class-
tives) and express their learning (e.g., writing, room. Proactive planning during lesson design,
diorama; Hitchcock et al., 2002). Teachers ad- discussed next, is a key component of this aspect
dress this type of engagement when planning of the UDL framework (Israel et al., 2014).
the UDL principles of representation and action
and expression. Proactive Planning
Multiple means of representation. The In proactive planning, the teacher considers the
principle of multiple means of representation barriers to learning that students may face and
recognizes that students’ ability to understand then designs lessons incorporating strategies
and learn information is dependent on the types that support students and minimize identified
of methods and materials teachers use during in- barriers. By proactively attending to learner
struction (Meyer et al., 2014). Teachers support needs, teachers can decrease the instructional
student learning when they include a variety of barriers students face in the classroom. Of
methods and materials (e.g., KWL chart, video, course, minimizing barriers is only one part
text, illustrations) to present content to students of planning instruction; effective teachers also
during instruction. For example, when teaching modify or incorporate other teaching strate-
about a specific topic, the use of manipulatives, gies that support students during instruction

KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD • APRIL–JUNE 2020 85

Removing Barriers

(Marshall, 2016). However, effective proactive only a textbook to teach content will inhibit
planning limits the number of instructional ad- students who have difficulty with reading com-
justments needed to support students during prehension; similarly, lecturing alone to teach
instruction. content will be an obstacle for students who
To proactively plan lessons that acknowl- struggle with listening comprehension. Once
edge learner variability, a teacher needs to strategies are in place to overcome curricular
consider two types of instructional barriers—skill barriers, they can be implemented each year as
barriers and curricular barriers—as well as ad- needed and appropriate.
dress any individual barriers students may still Sometimes the strategies used for skill
face. barriers may also lessen curricular barriers. For
Skill barriers. Skill barriers are barriers example, a graphic organizer may be used to
students face, from year to year, when learning support students who have the pre-skills needed
new skills. They occur when students have the to write a paragraph but do not yet know the
pre-skills to master the new concept, but need elements needed to compose one. This same
support to reach the goal. These barriers are in- strategy also reduces curricular barriers based on
herent to learning; if there is no challenge, then learner variability typically found in classrooms.
learning does not take place. Teachers typically For example, the graphic organizer assists
scaffold these barriers by providing supports students who need support with organization
until students become proficient in the skill. For during written expression by structuring the
example, when teaching students to compose a paragraph. In addition, it aids students who have
paragraph, teachers may use a graphic organizer difficulty with processing by helping them recall
to support students in learning to include a topic the elements of a paragraph. Thus, teachers may
sentence, three supporting details, and a closing implement strategies that serve the needs of a
sentence in their paragraph. Providing supports number of students by addressing different types
for a skill barrier is akin to providing scaffolding of learning barriers.
for students in their zone of proximal develop- Teachers may be able to fade (i.e., remove)
ment (ZPD). The ZPD is the gap between what a support from students when it is implemented
students achieve when working alone and the for a skill barrier more quickly than one used
level of performance achieved when working in for students who need to overcome a curricular
collaboration with more knowledgeable others barrier. This is an important distinction between
or with well-designed instructional scaffolds the two types of barriers. Some students will
(Vygotsky, 1978). These supports are typically need continued access to supports to overcome
faded quickly; once the task is mastered, they curricular barriers that occur in a particular con-
are no longer needed. text (e.g., using graphic organizers to organize
Curricular barriers. Curricular barriers are written expression).
the barriers that affect students’ ability to access Individual barriers. Individual barriers
and learn content. As emphasized earlier, learner refer to instructional barriers that affect only a
variability is systematic, predictable, and context specific student and would not typically recur
dependent (Meyer et al., 2014); so the same cur- on a yearly basis. Rather, individual barriers are
ricular barriers will exist from year to year. To ad- addressed based on a student’s needs in a learn-
dress and overcome curricular barriers, teachers ing context. These barriers are infrequent and
must think about the learner variability present specific to an individual student. An example
in the classroom and the context in which that of addressing an individual barrier might be
variability inhibits learning. For example, using ensuring that a student who has limited speech

86 KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD • APRIL–JUNE 2020

 WWW.KDP.ORG

capacity has an augmentative and alternative Table 1. Instructional Barrier Matrix Example
communication (AAC) device so that he or she
can participate in a class discussion. Based on the Identify student Context
variability within (when to
learning context, a teacher may include an AAC curricular area Definition Strategy or tool implement)
device for any instruction where that student
Reading
would be expected to communicate (e.g., ask
Decoding Reading words Chunking and Decoding
or answer questions, add to discussions, give accurately stretching multisyllabic
opinions). words
UDL proactive planning starts by consider-
Comprehension Understanding what Text-to-speech Introducing new
ing how instructional barriers (i.e., skill and cur- text means reader content (e.g.,
ricular) may affect the goal and impede student science, novels)
learning. When planning, teachers first attend to
Fluency Reading with Readers theater Practicing fluency
these broader barriers to address inaccessibility accuracy and in reading class
and obstacles to learning, and then examine any expression
specific barriers that still exist for a given student.
Written expression
By first addressing the broader categories of
Spelling Writing words Talking dictionary Final drafts, when
skill and curricular barriers, the need to address accurately spelling is graded
individual barriers decreases (Israel et al., 2014).
Handwriting Writing words Speech recognition Composing on the
legibly programs computer
Instructional Barrier Matrix Grammar Proper word usage Ginger software Composing on the
The UDL framework requires teachers to plan and placement (free online) computer
lessons that address the learning needs of all Organization Structuring writing Graphic organizer Writing in any
students. As noted earlier, Edyburn (2010) rec- content area
ognized that for teachers to implement UDL, Mathematics
they need a blueprint to assist in focusing on Computation Solving calculations Calculator (or Problems with a
the diversity of students in the classroom. The checklist) lot of steps (e.g.,
instructional barrier matrix proposed in this ar- process problems)

ticle provides that blueprint by focusing on the Problem solving/ Applying strategies Graphic organizer Strategically solv-
reasoning to find solutions (e.g., Venn ing mathematical
concept of predictable dimensions of student diagram, chart) problems
variability (Meyer et. al., 2014).
Behavior
To develop an instructional barrier matrix,
Internalizing Keeping emotions Feelings chart Helping students
teachers first consider the predictable student in express emotions
variability in skill and curricular levels they ex- nonverbally
pect to see in the classroom in any given year. Externalizing Letting emotions Safe space/ Helping students
When completing the matrix, teachers include out relaxation area who are
overwhelmed
all strategies and tools available to address
student variability within each curricular area. Attending
(Some predictable areas of student variability Inattention Ability to focus Choice (e.g., book, Instructional
writing instrument, activities
are shown in Table 1.) assessment
Note that some dimensions of student vari- project)
ability differ from school to school based on Hyperactivity/ Ability to stop Movement break As necessary to
student population. For instance, if a school has impulsivity and think about address student
outcomes before needs
a large population of students who are English acting
as Second Language (ESL) learners, then teach-

KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD • APRIL–JUNE 2020 87

Removing Barriers

Table 2. Individual Barriers ditionally, new strategies or tools may become

available and should be added to the matrix. In
Individual barrier contrast, each year a teacher must determine
within curricular Context (when whether any of his or her students need support
Name area Strategy or tool to implement) at the individual barriers level.

Closing Thoughts
Once teachers develop the instructional barrier
matrix for their class, the first step in proactively
ers would consider this factor as a predictable planning a UDL lesson is complete. In develop-
dimension of student variability. However, if only ing both the instructional and individual barrier
one or two students in the school are ESL learn- matrices, teachers identify the expected barriers
ers, then learner variability would be addressed to learning, as well as those barriers that are
at the individual level because the barrier affects unique to a given student. In addition, teachers
only a limited number of students. identify strategies to overcome those barriers.
Next, after identifying predictable areas of Thus, when planning a specific lesson, teachers
student variability and creating common defini- need only to determine how and to what extent
tions, teachers consider the available strategies, those identified barriers will impact the lesson
tools, and resources to eliminate or reduce the being created, and which specific strategies are
impact of the instructional barriers affecting stu- most appropriate to reduce or eliminate those
dents. Finally, as shown in Table 1, they address barriers without decreasing the challenge of the
the context in which the strategy or tool can be lesson. With the proactive planning in place, the
used without reducing the learning challenge. task of incorporating appropriate supports for all
After considering the predictable student vari- students into the lesson is simplified.
ability, the available strategies or tools to reduce or
eliminate those barriers, and when to implement References
them (i.e., context), teachers consider whether Coyne, M. D., Kame,enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2007). Effective
teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (3rd ed.).
there are students in the classroom who have an Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for
individual barrier to learning. These students will learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the
second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41.
need additional tools, supports, or strategies to Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Provid-
ing new access to the general curriculum: Universal Design for
reduce their respective individual barriers to access Learning. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8–17.
Israel, M., Ribuffo, C., & Smith, S. (2014, July). Universal Design for
and learn the content. Table 2 provides a format Learning: Recommendations for teacher preparation and profes-
sional development (CEEDAR Document No. IC-7). Retrieved from
for addressing individual barriers. When supports http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/
are in place at the skill and curricular levels, there IC-7_FINAL_08-27-14.pdf
Marshall, K. (2016). Rethinking differentiation: Using teachers’ time
should be very few students who need individual most effectively. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(1), 8–13.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for
barriers addressed. learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional
Publishing.
Because the instructional barrier matrix is Novak Educational Consulting. (2020). Million dollar question: What
does UDL look like? Retrieved from https://www.novakeducation.
developed by considering predicable student com/million-dollar-question-what-does-udl-look-like
Rose, D. H., & Gravel, J. W. (2010). Universal Design for Learn-
variability, there is limited need to engage in a ing. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International
encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., Vol. 8, pp. 119–124). Oxford,
major revision of the matrix from year to year. UK: Elsevier.
Of course, the students served by a given school Rose, D. H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal Design for Learning:
Meeting the challenge of individual learning differences through
may change (e.g., an increase in the number of a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in the Information
Society, 5(4), 381–391.
ESL students), and thus the associated predicable Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes (M. Cole, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
student variability may need to be refined. Ad- University Press.

88 KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD • APRIL–JUNE 2020