Although interest in UDL has grown across education systems, the evidence on how it plays out specifically in primary mathematics has remained scattered across different educational contexts and research designs, making it difficult to draw coherent conclusions about what works, under what conditions, and with what outcomes. To address that fragmentation, the reviewer screened 168 records identified through the database searches and ultimately included 14 studies that met the review’s criteria. Methodological quality of the included studies was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, Version 2018), and the findings were synthesised thematically.

Importantly, the review is explicit about the limits of its evidence base: because only 14 studies were included, and because those studies varied considerably in methodology and context, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. The review does not claim that UDL has been proven effective at scale in primary mathematics; rather, it maps what the existing studies report and organises those reports into a usable structure. Thematic synthesis of the included studies identified three substantive themes.

The first concerned the instructional practices that support UDL implementation in primary mathematics classrooms. The second concerned the educational outcomes that have been associated with UDL implementation. The third concerned the contextual challenges and enabling factors that shape whether UDL can be put into practice at all.

Together, these three themes formed the empirical foundation for the evidence-informed integrative framework that the review puts forward. On the instructional side, the reviewed studies characterised UDL implementation through differentiated instruction and through the deliberate provision of multiple means of representation, engagement, and action and expression. These practices were supported by accessible learning resources and digital technologies, which emerged as recurring components of the UDL implementations described in the literature.

The outcomes reported in the reviewed studies included mathematics achievement, conceptual understanding, learner engagement, participation, and accessibility. The review’s language here is deliberately associational: the included studies reported these outcomes alongside UDL practices, and the small, heterogeneous evidence base means the associations should not be read as definitive causal effects.

Perhaps the most practically significant theme concerned context. Successful implementation of UDL in primary mathematics, according to the reviewed studies, depended on sustained teacher professional development, institutional support, and equitable access to instructional resources. This finding reframes UDL not as a set of techniques that individual teachers can simply adopt, but as an approach whose success rests on conditions that schools and systems must actively provide. Without ongoing professional learning, backing from institutions, and resources that all learners can actually access, the flexible design principles at the heart of UDL are difficult to realise in everyday mathematics teaching.

Building on these themes, the review develops an evidence-informed integrative framework that extends existing UDL applications by situating them specifically within primary mathematics education. The framework links enabling conditions, instructional practices, contextual influences, and learner outcomes within a single implementation model. Its value, as presented, is integrative: rather than treating teacher development, classroom practice, and learner results as separate concerns, the framework connects them as interdependent elements of one implementation process, offering researchers a structure for future studies and practitioners a map of the conditions their classrooms must meet.

By consolidating a previously fragmented literature, the study gives researchers and teacher educators a clearer picture of what UDL implementation in primary mathematics currently looks like in the empirical record, and of the gaps that remain. At the same time, the author’s own caution about the small number of studies and their methodological and contextual diversity serves as a reminder that the framework is a starting point for further research rather than a final verdict on UDL’s effectiveness in primary mathematics classrooms.

Subject of Research: Universal Design for Learning implementation in primary mathematics education

Article Title: Universal design for learning in primary mathematics education: a systematic review and evidence-informed integrative framework

Article References: Moleko, M. M. (2026). Universal design for learning in primary mathematics education: a systematic review and evidence-informed integrative framework. Frontiers in Education, 11, 1957548. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1957548

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1957548

Keywords: Universal Design for Learning, primary mathematics education, systematic review, inclusive education, differentiated instruction, PRISMA, learner engagement, teacher professional development, digital learning resources, instructional design, educational accessibility, Universal