To Marry or Not to Marry? Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Universal Design of Learning (UDL)

Introduction

Do you believe that Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Universal Design of Learning (UDL) are incompatible frameworks? Or can these approaches to instruction complement one another in a marriage of sorts? I believe that UDL and DI represent different approaches to instruction, but they have some core similarities that support curriculum design in distance-learning environments that strive to enhance access to and inclusion in higher education. Therefore it is argued that although UDL and differentiation are not the same frameworks, they are not competing structures and advocate for student variability in instruction. That is not to say that one approach is superior to the other as both approaches assert that the one-size-fits-all structure of traditional curriculum design does not support student diversity. Nevertheless, the two approaches differ a bit in the ways in which they go about achieving this (just like spouses in a marriage!). While DI is based on retrofitting and modifying instruction on the back-end, UDL anticipates students’ diversity and builds-in multiple forms of representation, engagement and expression from the outset. A clash in pedagogical approach? Or just a bump in the road? In my view, neither - if you work on the strengths of each approach in a way that complements the core goal that both frameworks support: student variability!

If we continue focusing on the differences between the two approaches, we will be unable to turn the proverbial adversaries into acquiescent allies. In fact, I think it makes sense to include both in the distance-learning context. Therefore, this paper provides an overview and practical application of UDL applications of differentiated instruction in an Open Distance and eLearning (ODeL) setting at the University of South Africa (Unisa) and will showcase how the flexibility of the online classroom can be monopolized to create a customized learning experience for each student by incorporating elements of both approaches. Hence, this paper provides a working prototype of how UDL applications of DI have been applied to a Business Communications course in a distance learning setting by altering the three elements of DI (product, process and content) in the provision of the three UDL principles (multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement).

The Different Faces of the Distance-Learning Classroom: ODeL in Context

Distance learning models of education endeavour to increase access to and inclusion in higher education as they accommodate a greater number of students, thereby opening up access to a more diverse cohort of students (Mittelmeier, Rienties, Rogaten, Gunter & Raghuram, 2019). The defining feature of the distance-learning classroom is the geographical and spatial distance between instructors and students and how these barriers are surpassed to allow students to connect and engage with the learning environment across boundaries (Heiser, 2019; Montebello et al., 2018). Instruction in distance learning environments can take place through various means, such as:

· traditional correspondence education via the postal service,

· multimedia channels such as radio and television, and

· online learning (or eLearning) environments via the Internet.

Online learning, therefore, is one form of distance education and can be used as the sole means of instruction or as a combination of methods in a distance-learning environment (Manoj, 2019). Often, distance-education courses utilize blended learning models of instruction (Francis & Santhakumar, 2020; Gepp & Kumar, 2020). A blended learning classroom could integrate a combination of pedagogical methods and/or instructional tools and techniques to achieve the learning objectives (Allen, 2018). One of the frameworks of distance-learning is the Open Distance and eLearning (ODeL) model used at the University of South (Unisa) that offers a combination of fully online programmes and blended learning courses.

Unisa is a mega distance-learning institution that accommodates more than 350 000 students transnationally with a large cohort of students from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and particularly from South Africa (Mittelmeier, Rogaten, Long, Dalu, Gunter, Prinsloo & Rienties, 2019; Makoe, 2018). The blended learning model integrates traditional correspondence instruction with eLearning and mobile learning modalities to mitigate the challenges posed by the digital divide in South Africa and the Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The growing penetration of mobile technologies and broadband Internet connections in the SSA region, and South Africa specifically, make eLearning more accessible to students in remote areas, thereby providing a rich and digitally-enhanced learning environment for students in less developed precincts (Ateş-Çobanoğlu, 2020; O'Dea, 2020; Elliott, 2019). Unisa thus provides a unique context for distance-learning and provides opportunities for correspondingly exceptional pedagogical applications.

My Students Have Different Learning Needs. What Now? Theoretical Framework(s) To Cater for Student Diversity in an ODeL Environment

The industrial revolution brought about the massification of education and instructional materials that focused on the standardization of curricula and the means and modalities of instruction (Montebello et al., 2018; Prinsloo, 2017; Cohen, 2011). The underlying premise of mass education is that all students learn in the same way and therefore instructional means and modalities should be prepared for a stereotypically homogeneous student population. Although this premise has been widely criticized since the 1960’s, many higher education institutions, particularly in developing countries continue to disregard the merits of accounting for student heterogeneity in curriculum and instructional designs (Al-Azawei, Parslow & Lundqvist, 2017; Czerkawski & Bumen, 2013). Empirical research brings to light the variability in students’ abilities, knowledge, experiences, and interests and how accommodating for these needs can augment student success (Montebello et al., 2018; Novak, 2017; Tomlinson & Moon, 2013; Ralabate, 2011; Hall et al., 2004). As such, instructors and instructional designers face the colossal task of developing flexible curricula that can engage a diverse cohort of students who have correspondingly wide-ranging learning needs (Fovet, 2017; Novak, 2017; Hall et al., 2004). This can all sound very daunting to both novice and experienced instructors alike if instructional and curriculum design is not approached from a sound theoretical framework, as successful implementation of efficacious inclusive iterations rests on underlying pedagogical principles.

Universal design for learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction (DI) are theoretical frameworks with practical applicability that can help instructors plan and design their curricula to accommodate for variability in the classroom (Spedagogy, 2018; Novak, 2017; Hall et al., 2004). This paper, thus, argues that it is possible to utilize both these frameworks within a single curriculum, even though academic deliberations identify UDL and DI as opposing structures (Albright, 2018; Alsalamah, 2017; Hall, 2004). I believe that the mindset of differentiation aligns with the mindset required to support the implementation of UDL into a user-friendly framework that allows faculty to assess the accessibility of their practices (Albright, 2018; Al-Azawei et al., 2017; Fovet, 2017; Hall, 2004). Although there are differences in the way in which variability is recognized and planned for in the two approaches, these frameworks do not have to be housed on the two extremes of the inclusive curriculum design continuum. There is room for integration and cooperation between UDL and DI, starting by focusing on the merits of each approach. In this light, the most notable similarity between the two approaches is that they share a common end-goal: to make allowances for diversity in the classroom (Alsalamah, 2017; Hall, 2004). What this means in practice is that instructors should be anticipating and planning for student variances from the outset, while also continually monitoring student progress, and implementing the necessary adjustments to instructional processes. But how do these two theoretical frameworks compare and how can they be applied in the distance-learning setting?

Exploring UDL in Distance-Learning

As students differ in terms of learning styles, training, backgrounds, experiences, education and skills, instructors need to build variability into their curricula to engage a heterogeneous range of students (Novak, 2017). The UDL framework provides one way of adjusting instruction by preempting possible challenges and incorporating modifications into the curriculum from the outset with intent to enhance the overall learning experience (Spedagogy, 2018, Ralabate, 2011). In other words, this framework uses a design-forward approach to curriculum and instructional design that focuses on the architecture of the whole learning experience.

UDL is a pedagogical approach that has been scientifically-validated and underpins accessible and engaging teaching praxis that is suitable for students with varying levels of abilities and disabilities (Czerkawski & Bumen, 2013; Edyburn, 2010). The advantage of the UDL method is that it allows instructors to work from a point of understanding and familiarity, and functioning from this point of proficiency to amend their current practices to augment inclusion in the development of subsequential curricula in an effort to develop autonomous students irrespective of the variability in their learning needs (McClaskey, 2017; Czerkawski & Bumen, 2013). The objective is to provide students with multiple options to interact with the instructional environment through strategic curriculum design (Chita-Tegmark et. al, 2012). Thus, in addressing the underlying concern to embody the diversity that individual students bring to the learning environment and to eradicate barriers to learning that are present in most traditional curricula, UDL advocates that course structures should consider the initiatory assimilation of multiple forms of representation, engagement and expression (Singleton et al., 2019; Czerkawski & Bumen, 2013). The idea is to formulate educational experiences that include a multitude of ways in which students can:

· interact with course content (the concept of engagement),

· acquire this knowledge (the concept of representation), and

· present their newly-found knowledge (the concept of expression).

Although technology is not a primary requisite for UDL implementation, digital tools do provide multiple possibilities and innovative techniques to increase accessibility and inclusion, thereby signifying the importance of technology as an important medium for UDL enactment (Czerkawski & Bumen, 2013; Chita-Tegmark et al., 2012; Edyburn, 2010). The availability of a mélange of emerging technological tools and applications provide many benefits in progressing the enactment of UDL for students with varying abilities and disabilities (Vargas-Parra et al., 2018; Racheva, 2017). Instructors, thus, have the option to provide a plethora of synchronous and asynchronous alternatives for students to access courses and instructional materials in various formats that are also accessible, thereby providing a platform for multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression (Allen, 2018). For example instructional videos should be available with captions. Additionally, it is preferable to make transcripts available for the narratives that feature within these instructional videos, which students can translate into their preferred language/s if required (Francis & Santhakumar, 2020). This approach mitigates the challenges that image-dependant and text-based instructional content might pose for some students and provides some ways in which UDL can be integrated into the course structure of distance-learning curricula. Per se, UDL implementation is context-specific and can be adapted to the specific learning environment and requirements thereof.

On this note, it should be stated that the facilitation of UDL implementation goes beyond the rudimentary integration of the latest technology tools into the curriculum. However, ensuring that curricula are pragmatically adequate and accessible involves the effective combination and use of synchronous and asynchronous digital technologies to enhance student engagement, despite diversity. As such, due to the typically asynchronous nature of collaboration in distance and virtual learning environments and lack of rich face-to-face interaction, it becomes even more important to enhance student engagement (Buelow, Barry & Rich, 2018). By implication this entails the strategic mix of context-specific tools and applications, whether digital or traditional, that is feasibly and effectively integrated into the curricula. In essence, engagement is a vital element of student satisfaction and concomitant educational achievement that requires insight into the activities that contribute to optimized engagement in virtual and distance-learning contexts, which, ideally involves university-wide buy-in and planning (Albright, 2018). What this means is that planning distance-instruction from a UDL perspective requires a comprehensive understanding of diversity, accessibility, and inclusion prior to course delivery. Therefore, think about the different ways in which the same material can be delivered, accessed, and interacted with by different individuals in the learning transaction. Then implement the most effective ways in which this can be done to achieve the specific learning outcomes of a course in a manner that is most feasible and beneficial for students, instructors, and the overall goals of the programme.

DI in the Distance-Learning Classroom

The central tenet of differentiated instruction (DI) is to teach the same material to all students using a variety of instructional strategies to cater for eclectic gradations of complexity (Albright, 2018; Novak, 2017; Tomlinson, 2013; Huebner, 2010). Differentiation recognizes that students have different approaches to learning and uses an active system of continuous student assessments to reciprocally and actively adapt instruction to accommodate for these differences (Albright, 2018; Pappas, 2015; Tomlinson, 2013). By implication, teaching cannot be effective through standardized curricula and would require customized pedagogical devices and praxes. Hence, differentiation purports the dissemination of the same core information in numerous modes in order to support students with varying levels of proficiency, competency and learning needs. However unlike UDL, DI retrofits and modifies instruction on the back-end.

Essentially, the underlying tenets of differentiation guide the design of scaffolding through constant formative assessment and correlated adaptation of curricula (Englander & Micley, 2017; Pappas, 2015; Melenas, 2014; Tomlinson, 2013; Hurst, 2010). As a result, curricula are frequently modified to meet students’ needs in an effort to develop their competence with respect to achieving the required learning outcomes. There are three core elements that DI is primarily based on:

· Explaining the same concepts and themes through varied modes and methods of delivery to teach the same concepts and themes. For example, content can be presented in the form of text, images, and or a combination of multimedia tools and applications to account for individual students’ learning needs and preferences (the principle of content)

· Utilizing varied instructional techniques and activities to teach and appraise the same course content, thereby providing students with opportunities to apply their knowledge within their lived realities in line with their individual learning needs. For example, through synchronous or asynchronous lectures, blog posts, or a series of short videos that scaffold information on a specific topic for students with different levels of competence (the principle of process)

· Allowing students to showcase their newfound knowledge through varied and continual assessments, which can be achieved through using a combination of self-paced, summative and other types of evaluations that support the premise of student variability (the principle of product)

Although DI advocates for variability and augments inclusive educational practices, it requires a monumental shift in pedagogical approach and praxis, which, according to Allen (2018), Novak (2016), and Montebello et al. (2018), the distance-learning and virtual classrooms can arguably contend with quite comfortably. This is so because distance and online learning environments provide flexible spaces that are conducive to customization of content and the associated delivery, interaction with and assessment thereof (Manoj, 2019; Englander & Micley, 2017; Racheva, 2017). The scheduling flexibility of distance and virtual instructional spaces provide this unique space for DI as instructional materials can be easily modified for diverse cohorts of students (Melenas, 2014; Tomlinson & Moon, 2013; Huebner, 2010). In fact, the very experience of learning in distance and virtual instructional spaces are by themselves, subjective and idiosyncratic encounters for individual students that necessitate the purposeful and strategic implementation of option-centric curricula that differentiates content, process, and product.

The innate flexibility of distance and eLearning environments, which is enhanced through asynchronicity, fosters differentiation by allowing students to personalize their learning experiences and engagement with their courses (Weselby, 2020; Vargas-Parra et al., 2018; Racheva, 2017). The integration of digital tools also makes it possible to use varied and innovative assessment strategies that, in essence, facilitate differentiation (Englander & Micley, 2017; Huebner, 2010). Students with diverse abilities and disabilities also benefit from differentiated instruction that is facilitated by technological apparatuses as need-specific resources and adaptations can be identified and used as and when required (Vargas-Parra et al., 2018; Novak, 2016; Pappas, 2015). The cloud-storage capabilities of virtual learning spaces further endorse differentiation as they provide a database of previous student activities that can be utilized for future comparisons and modifications, thereby easing the task of differentiating instruction in some way (Vargas-Parra et al., 2018). Thus, differentiating instruction in distance and eLearning situations requires the creation of a learning environment that enables progression through supportive instructional structures and strategies. This can be achieved by providing alternatives with respect to the product, process, and content of the instructional commission. Differentiation, thus, is a less complex process in the virtual and distance-learning spaces due to their characteristically flexible nature. When approached in this way, instructors have endless possibilities in their choice of technological devices and mechanisms that they can use to dynamically identify and support students’ peculiar needs as they are necessitated.

The Path Less Travelled in Curriculum Design: Do I Choose the Comfort-Zone, the Middle Road, or Any Point Along the Continuum?

The shifting student profile continually challenges instructors to institute concomitant improvements in pedagogical praxes that mirror the heterogeneity of the instructional terrain. This transient educational landscape effectuates the viability of DI and UDL implementation in espousing inclusion and access (Vargas-Parra et al., 2018; Pappas, 2015; Hall, 2004). Despite academic deliberations to the contrary, UDL and DI can complement one another in teaching practice, and even more so in the distance-learning classroom, in my view. Affiancing the underlying precepts of DI with UDL guidelines can provide instructors with a cornucopian blend of context-specific pedagogical propositions for proficiently promulgating inclusion. The basal contrast between the two pedagogical methodologies espouses that while the UDL methodology precludes barriers to learning and interweaves modular adaptations preemptively, DI responsively modifies instructional strategies as learning barriers are identified (Singleton et al., 2019; Alsalamah; 2017; Tomlinson, 2013). Nevertheless, a point that is often overlooked in pedagogical discourse is that distance and virtual-learning instructors can derive great benefit from this fundamental difference between UDL and DI when explored methodically and enacted strategically. In this light, I argue that the flexibility of the distance-education and virtual-learning domains is conducive to customizing the educational journey, thereby making it easier to incorporate elements of both approaches to design optimally and progressively inclusive curricula.

In practice, the key components of DI and UDL function as interrelated elements of an intricately interwoven system of activities that do not become operative in sequestration (Singleton et al., 2019; Vargas-Parra et al., 2018; Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). The underlying principles of these frameworks overlap in many meaningful ways and can be capitalized on to augment diversity through sound pedagogical praxes. Together, the UDL framework and DI can provide mutually incremental optimization that can enkindle student success through conscientious inclusion and access. Students have the margin of freedom to select the content, the process and the product commensurate with their domains of dexterity and engagement through multiple means of representation, expression and representation. This approach gives students the choice to navigate through various resources and accommodations that support them in attaining academic success. The implementation of the middle road in the distance and virtual-education contexts, thus, fosters self-directed learning as students become cognizant of the importance of their commitment in the learning process as they navigate through the range of options available for selection in the course structure.

However, one might ask whether this allied approach to instructional methodology necessitates modifications to all the three elements of UDL and DI for each programme? Either way, how can this be accomplished operationally?

You would be happy to note that it is not necessary to modify all the elements of DI and UDL to implement this pedagogically-pluralistic approach to inclusive education. The learning context, students’ learning needs, and the specific goals of the course would dictate the types and levels of modifications to be instituted and applied for each programme. Should instructors, nonetheless, endeavour to harness UDL applications to differentiate programs using all these elements, they should be forewarned that this would warrant substantial strategic planning and organization, which is, however achievable. The implementation of this hybrid methodology, thus, requires creative thinking, strategic planning, and meticulous implementation, thereby implying that inclusive instruction is a scientifically-artistic field of practice.

Hence, I argue that the actualization of the core elements of UDL, i.e. providing multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement can essentially be effectuated by customizing the content, process, and product of the scholastic workspace, thereby also incorporating the three core features of differentiated instruction in this eclectic approach to inclusion. Figure 1 below presents a visual display of UDL applications of DI in the distance-learning environment. How the elements of these two approaches can be integrated and manifested in practice, within a Business Communications course is brought to light in the subsequent section following the graphic depiction.

Figure 1: UDL applications of DI in the distance-learning environment

UDL and DI Integration: How Does this Work in Practice? Preview of a Working Prototype

Following from the theoretical deliberations and assertions put forth in this paper thus far, this section highlights how UDL applications of DI have been applied to a Business Communications course in a distance-learning setting, viz., at the University of South Africa (Unisa), by altering the three elements of DI (product, process and content) in the provision of the three UDL principles (multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement). Hence, a merger of DI and UDL resulted in the creation of a course that accounts for student variability preemptively and progressively. In this way, students could choose the types of resources they felt would be beneficial to them, in the formats they required and at the level that they preferred. In the application of this pedagogical approach, the merging of approaches in developing this course manifested in the following ways:

Applying the principle of continual formative assessments, data was gathered to evaluate students’ writing proficiency, which is the core criterion of competence for this course. This was the basis of building-in modifications in the course. As such, student assessments showed that students struggled with essay writing, in terms of:

• Formulating a thesis statement

• Structuring paragraphs

• Assimilating application and theory

Therefore, assessments and instruction were restructured accordingly. Following from the principles of UDL, student variability in terms of learning needs and disabilities were taken into consideration before implementing the course this year. Subsequently, inclusive and accessible materials were designed and shared with students, such as:

• Instructional videos highlighting different levels and types of the writing process

• These videos were created in three different formats, i.e., with sign-language, in low-contrast, and in high contrast

• Bullet points were included in the instructional videos

• Transcripts of all the narrations in the videos were included

• The same content presented in the videos were made available as slide shows

• Text-based tutorial letters containing the same information in digital format (i.e. portable document format) and in the form of printed documents were made available

• Additional resources that would help students with theoretical applications were provided to students along with the assessments, which they could choose to use if they desired. They were given the option to use their own resources if they wished to do so

• They were required to interact with fellow students on the online discussion forums that had five prepopulated topics related to the writing tasks in the course. Aligned with the principle of scaffolding, this was introduced so that students could co-construct knowledge and assist each other in mastering content.

• Multiple-choice questions with varying levels of questions were introduced as another assessment strategy to assist students with familiarizing themselves with the theoretical concepts in the course. Many of these questions contained scenarios based on actual workplace experiences in different contexts so that students could relate these to their lived experiences.

• Rubrics for each assessment were provided beforehand

• Personalized and feedback was provided for each assessment and general feedback provided in the form of digital and printed tutorial letters

The preview of the working prototype can be accessed at this address: https://sites.google.com/unisacommscience.co.za/businesscomm

These UDL applications of the three elements of DI, i.e., content, process, and product, enable instructors to envisage customizable learning environments in a pragmatically feasible and much more surmountable manner. Table 1 below provides some examples of the pragmatic implementation of UDL applications of DI. It might be useful to refer to the following table as you plan pedagogically-pluralistic lessons, referring to it as you consider how to adjust the key elements of DI in the application of UDL principles to truly meet the needs of all students preemptively and progressively.

Table 1: Pragmatic implementation of UDL applications of DI

Conclusions and Recommendations

The distance and virtual-learning environments provide multiple advantages for creating innovative strategies for inclusive curricula, particularly as a result of the flexibility of the online and distance learning environments. Of importance though, is that courses are designed on the basis of sound pedagogical principles that support student diversity. Of these approaches, universal design of learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction (DI) provide stalwart principles for teaching methodology within various contexts. Granting that scholarly debates identify these two approaches to pedagogy as incompatible structures, this paper argued to the contrary. Although it is recognized that UDL and DI are different frameworks, it was acknowledged that they are not competing configurations, but rather inclusive pedagogical approaches that have many core similarities.

These similitudes can be strategically-implemented and creatively merged to enact preemptively and progressively inclusive UDL applications of the elements of DI. It was also noted that the fundamental difference between these frameworks in terms of their approach to addressing variability, where DI does this retrospectively and UDL implements this predictively, can be effectively utilized to address the needs of heterogeneous student populations. Thus, the core premises of this pluralistic approach to inclusive design were put forth after identifying and presenting the respective key principles and praxes of each approach theoretically and graphically. The pragmatic application of this eclectic approach to inclusive course construction was subsequently illustrated by unpacking the design features of a distance-learning Business Communications course implemented at the University of South Africa (Unisa) and the link to the prototype course was provided to illustrate the working model of a course based on the integration between the UDL and DI applications. A handy table with guidelines for implementing UDL applications of the elements of DI was also depicted as a practical guide for instructors in distance and virtual-learning settings.

In closing, it can be said that these pedagogically-pluralistic applications, though foundational, show great promise for addressing student variability in the geographically-dispersed classroom. This is important to note and consider as distance and eLearning seem to be becoming the global norm in recent times. It is therefore recommended that more research be carried out and greater application is explored in this area to gain insight into the different ways in which pedagogically pluralistic praxes can be effectively attained in different settings.

References

Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P. & Lundqvist, K. (2017). The effect of universal design for learning (UDL) application on e-learning acceptance: A structural equation model. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL), 18(6), 54-87. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.2880

Albright, D. (2018, October 8). The top 5 online teaching strategies to engage your students [Blog post]. Unscreen. Retrieved August 18, 2019 from https://www.uscreen.tv/blog/list-of-online-teaching-strategies/

Allen, K. (2018, October 31). Blended learning and differentiation: it’s not whether, but how [Blog post]. UTeach Institute. Retrieved August 18, 2019 from https://medium.com/@uteachinstitute/blended-learning-and-differentiation-its-not-whether-but-how-4624c8cabfa5

Alsalamah, A. (2017). Differences between differentiated instruction and universal design for learning. International Journal for Research in Education (IJRE), 6(10), 8-11. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320765310_Differences_between_Differentiated_Instruction_and_Universal_Design_for_Learning

Ateş-Çobanoğlu, A. (2020). From Ubiquitous to Ubiquitous Blended Learning Environments. In Durak, G., & Çankaya, S. (Eds.), Managing and Designing Online Courses in Ubiquitous Learning Environments (pp. 215-232). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9779-7.ch011

Buelow, J.R., Barry, T. & Rich, L.E.2018. Supporting learning engagement with online students. Online Learning Journal, 22(4), 313-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1384

Chita-Tegmark, M., Gravel, J., Serpa, M.B., Domings, Y. & Rose, D.H. (2012). Using the universal design for learning framework to support culturally diverse learners. Journal of Education, 192(1), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741219200104

Cohen, A. 2011. Global dimensions of distance learning. Ph.D thesis in Leadership and Change. Culver City, CA: Antioch University.

Czerkawski, B. & Bumen, N. (2013). Universal Design for E-Learning: A Review of the Literature for Higher Education. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2013--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1480-1483). Las Vegas, NV, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 23, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/115088/

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

Elliott, R. (2019, July 8). Mobile phone penetration throughout Sub-Saharan Africa [Blog post]. Geo Poll: In Market Research, Tech & Innovation. Retrieved June 23, 2020 from https://www.geopoll.com/blog/mobile-phone-penetration-africa/

Englander, J. & Micley, L. (2017). Differentiation in the online classroom [Article]. Retrieved September 22, 2019 from https://prizmah.org/differentiation-online-classroom

Fovet, F. (2017). Access, universal design and sustainability of teaching practices: a powerful synchronicity of concepts at a crucial conjuncture for higher education. Indonesian Journal of Disability Studies (IJDS), 4(2), 118-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.IJDS.2017.004.02.4

Francis, N & Santhakumar, A. 2020. Current Trends in Digital Learning and Innovation. In L.N. Makewa (Ed.), Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Innovation in Higher Education (pp. 1-16). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1662-1.ch001

Gepp, A & Kumar, K. 2020. How to improve teaching using blended learning. In L.N. Makewa (Ed.), Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Innovation in Higher Education (pp. 80-90). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1662-1.ch005

Hall, T.E., Strangman, N., Meyer, A., & Washington, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation (Effective Classroom Practices Report). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

Heiser, R. (2019,May 23). Diversifying instructional design in distance education [Blog post]. Retrieved 2020, June 15 from https://sites.psu.edu/rebeccaheiser/2019/05/23/diversifying-instructional-design-in-distance-education/

Huebner, T. 2010. What research says about differentiated learning. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 79-81. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb10/vol67/num05/Differentiated-Learning.aspx

Hurst, S. (2018, July 31). 6 elements of effective differentiated reading instruction [Blog post]. Reading Horizons. Retrieved August 18, 2019 from https://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/six-necessary-components-of-effective-differentiated-instruction

Manoj, K. (2019, June 25). Online learning is education that takes place over Internet. Retrieved from https://www.zoomtute.com/content/blogs/18/online-learning-is-education-that-takes-place-over-internet-dot

Montebello, M., Pinheiro, P., Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Haniya, S., Tzirides, A. O., Duane, A., Duane, T. & Duane, S. (2018). Enriching online education through differentiated learning. 4th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’18) Universitat Politècnica de València, València. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/HEAd18.2018.8019

McClaskey, K. (2017). Personalization and UDL: A perfect match. Educational Leadership, 74(6). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar17/vol74/num06/Personalization-and-UDL@-A-Perfect-Match.aspx

Melenas, T. (2014, January 3). Differentiated Instruction in an online classroom [Blog post]. Retrieved June 12, 2020 from https://edutrendsonline.com/2014/01/03/differentiated-instruction-in-an-online-classroom/

Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Rogaten, J., Gunter, A. & Raghuram, P. 2019. Internationalisation at a distance and at home: Academic and social adjustment in a South African distance learning context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 72 (2019), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.06.001

Mittelmeier, J., Rogaten, J., Long, D., Dalu, M., Gunter, A., Prinsloo, P. & Rienties, B. (2019). Understanding the Early Adjustment Experiences of Undergraduate Distance Education Students in South Africa. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4101

Makoe, M.E. (2018). Using future research methods in analysing policies relating to open distance education in Africa, Open Praxis, 10(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.581

Novak, L.R. (2016, October 29). Differentiation in online learning [Blog post]. Retrieved June 15, 2019 from https://rampages.us/lynnrnovak/2016/10/29/differentiation-in-online-learning/

Novak, K. (2017, February 1). UDL vs DI: The dinner party analogy. Novak Education Consulting. https://www.novakeducation.com/udl-vs-di-dinner-party-analogy/

Pappas, C. (2015, July 6). Differentiated instruction in eLearning: What eLearning professionals should know. eLearning Industry. Retrieved June 12, 2020 from https://elearningindustry.com/differentiated-instruction-in-elearning-what-elearning-professionals-should-know

Prinsloo, P. 2017. Leaders in distance education on the African continent. Journal of Learning for Development (JL4D), 4(2), 104-118. Retrieved from https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/225/209

Racheva, V. (2017, July 19). Differentiated instruction in the virtual classroom. Vedamo. Retrieved 2020, May 20 from https://www.vedamo.com/knowledge/differentiated-instruction-in-virtual-classroom/

Ralabate, P. K. (2011, August 30). Universal design for learning: meeting the needs of all students. Reading Rockets. Retrieved August 18, 2019 from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/universal-design-learning-meeting-needs-all-students

Singleton, K., Evmenova, A., Kinas Jerome, M., & Clark, K. (2019). Integrating UDL Strategies into the Online Course Development Process: Instructional Designers' Perspectives. Online Learning, 23(1). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1407

Spedagogy, LLC. (2018, February 22). Universal design for learning vs differentiated instruction. Medium. Retrieved August 19, 2019 from https://medium.com/@spedagogy/universal-design-for-learning-vs-differentiated-instruction-9fcf557b5b70

O'Dea, S. (2020, Feb 28). Market share of mobile technology in sub-Saharan Africa 2016-2025, by generation. Statista. Retrieved 2020, June 21, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/740592/sub-saharan-africa-share-of-mobile-telecommunication-technology/

Tomlinson, C.A. & Moon, T.R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2013). What is differentiated instruction? Reading Rockets. Retrieved May 18, 2020 from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/what-differentiated-instruction

Vargas-Parra, M.A., Rodríguez-Orejuela , J.A. & Herrera-Mosquera, L. 2018. Promotion of differentiated instruction through a virtual learning environment. FOLIOS, 47(1), 165-14. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/folios/n47/0123-4870-folios-47-00165.pdf

Weselby, C. (2020, March 2). What is differentiated instruction? Examples of how to differentiate instruction in the classroom. Resilient Educator. Retrieved June 10, 2020 from https://resilienteducator.com/classroom-resources/examples-of-differentiated-instruction/