Designing Accounting for Everyone: How Universal Designing for Learning (UDL) Transformed My First-Year Subjects

By Helen Black

UDL principles improve clarity, flexibility, and usability for all students, particularly those balancing work, family responsibilities, language transitions, or moments of disruption in their lives.

Accounting in Context and Accounting Information for Managers are two large undergraduate accounting subjects that together enrol more than 1,400 students each year across multiple campuses, online delivery, and third‑party providers. The cohorts are highly diverse and include first‑in‑family students, international students, students balancing work and caring responsibilities, and students managing physical or cognitive challenges—many of whom do not formally disclose or qualify for individual adjustments.

Teaching and learning in subjects of this scale can be challenging for both students and staff. Over time, I observed that many students were disengaging or struggling not because they lacked ability or motivation, but because the way the curriculum was structured made it difficult for them to participate fully.

These observations prompted me to rethink the design and delivery of both subjects. Guided by Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, I led a multi‑year redesign focused on proactively removing learning barriers and making expectations and pathways to success clearer and more attainable for all students. UDL provided a principled framework for supporting learner diversity at scale without lowering academic standards or increasing individual workload.

Why Universal Design for Learning (UDL)?

Universal Design for Learning is often associated with supporting students with disability, but its value is much broader. A useful parallel comes from architecture: ramps were initially introduced to provide access for wheelchair users, yet they also benefit parents with prams, people with temporary injuries, delivery workers, and anyone moving through a space with ease in mind. In the same way, UDL principles—such as offering multiple ways to access content, engage with learning, and demonstrate understanding—do not only support students with learning differences or living with disability.

UDL principles improve clarity, flexibility, and usability for all students, particularly those balancing work, family responsibilities, language transitions, or moments of disruption in their lives.

In higher education, we rarely have advance knowledge of the diverse needs and learning preferences of our students. Research indicates that approximately 64% of students with a disability choose not to disclose or apply for reasonable adjustments (Grimes et al., 2017), meaning that many learning needs remain invisible. In response, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) was adopted as the framework for curriculum redesign.

UDL begins by anticipating learner variability from the outset, encouraging proactive curriculum design that offers multiple ways for students to engage with content, demonstrate learning, and sustain motivation, thereby reducing the need for individualised adjustments later.

What I did to implement UDL in my subjects

Redesigning Subjects

Guided by these principles, the redesign of my subjects focused first on how students encountered learning materials. Previously, many students described feeling overwhelmed by the volume and density of textbook readings, often unsure what was most important to focus on. To address this, learning materials were restructured into concise, outcome‑aligned LMS modules that clearly signposted what students needed to understand each week. Core content was delivered through short lecture “pods,” offered as captioned videos, MP3 audio, and structured PDFs. This flexibility allowed students to engage with content in ways that suited their circumstances and reduced the sense of overload that can be a barrier to participation. As one student explained, “I really liked the fact that only relevant reading was included each module. This ensured I wasn’t wasting time reading countless hours of irrelevant material.”

As the curriculum became clearer, learning activities were redesigned to help students actively work with ideas rather than passively consume content. Weekly learning cycles incorporated low‑stakes opportunities for students to practise recalling and applying key concepts, supported by immediate feedback. These activities helped students check their understanding early and build confidence as they progressed. One student reflected that***“the refresh of videos and the Game Zone made the content intriguing and really easy to learn and remember,”***highlighting how engagement shifted from obligation to curiosity.

Redesigning Tutorials

Changes were also made to how tutorials were experienced, particularly in the early weeks of semester. Tutorials were redesigned to prioritise belonging and participation, recognising that anxiety and uncertainty can prevent students from engaging, even when they are capable. Tutors explicitly signposted university support services to normalise help‑seeking, and early activities were structured to be low‑risk and inclusive. As the semester progressed, tutorials began with team‑based Trivia that revisited key concepts and helped students ease into engagement and discussion.

Students frequently commented on how this changed the classroom atmosphere, describing it as***“a positive and motivating learning atmosphere that encourages competitive participation.”***

Learning activities were built around a continuous business case, allowing students to work independently while discussing underlying concepts with peers rather than sharing answers. Using a single dataset across topics helped students see accounting as an integrated system, rather than a series of isolated concepts.

Redesigning Assessment

Assessment was another area where students felt a noticeable shift. Rather than encountering a small number of high‑stakes tasks, assessment was redesigned as a scaffolded sequence of activities that supported learning over time. Weekly portfolio tasks, supported by annotated exemplars and clear rubrics, helped students understand expectations and track their progress.

Where possible, students were offered flexibility in how they demonstrated learning, while maintaining consistent academic standards. This clarity reduced anxiety and supported confidence, with one student noting that***“the portfolios were very well explained and demonstrated in class before we attempted it ourselves.”***

Evaluating the Impact of UDL

The impact of these changes was reflected in improved student outcomes, with pass rates increasing and remaining consistent across campuses and delivery modes. However, the most meaningful changes were evident in how students described their learning experience.

Students reported feeling more confident, more motivated, and more willing to engage.

Fewer students disengaged after missing classes as supplementary bridging templates helped students re‑enter learning without feeling permanently behind and attendance stabilised rather than dropping off after the intrasession break.

Taken together, this experience reinforced an important insight: inclusive design benefits everyone. Universal Design for Learning did not lower expectations or simplify content; instead, it clarified what mattered, reduced unnecessary barriers, and made pathways to success more visible.

When students know what is expected, feel supported, and believe they belong, they are far more likely to engage, persist, and succeed.

While improvements in outcomes were important, what mattered most was how students described their learning experience. For many, the subject felt clearer, more supportive, and more engaging. As one student reflected:

“Of 10 subjects I have completed at WSU, this was by far the most enjoyable and effective class I have done.”

----

References

Grimes, S., Scevak, J., Southgate, E., & Buchanan, R. (2017). Non-disclosing students with disabilities or learning challenges: Characteristics and size of a hidden population. The Australian Educational Researcher, 44(4), 425-441.