Providing Multiple Means of Representation¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 5 claims (4 for, 1 mixed) · 17 studies (7 causal, 4 quant-synthesis, 4 review, 2 theoretical), q1–q4 · 4 of 17 report an effect size

Description¶

Providing multiple means of representation is the first principle of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): content is offered in more than one format — text, audio, video, diagrams, worked models — so that perceptual, linguistic, and prior-knowledge differences do not become barriers to access. It goes beyond redundancy: each representation should be pedagogically functional, not merely a duplicate, and should include options that adjust vocabulary, syntax, and background demands.

Design Implications¶

Multiple representations work because they distribute information across verbal and visual channels and reduce the chance that a single format's demands (decoding, listening comprehension, unfamiliar vocabulary) block access to the content itself Presenting material across visual and verbal channels improves learning over single-channel presentation. [+S]. But added representations are not free: each channel consumes working memory, so formats must be integrated and coordinated rather than scattered Cognitive overload degrades learning when total demands exceed working memory capacity. [+S]. Irrelevant or decorative media actively harms learning Coherence principle: irrelevant material hurts learning. [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• At least two genuinely functional representations of core content (e.g., text plus annotated diagram, not text plus decorative image)
• Accessible formats: captions, alt text, screen-reader-compatible structure, transcripts
• Vocabulary support — glossaries, definitions, plain-language alternatives (Accessible Vocabulary & Syntax)
• Activation of relevant background knowledge, since a representation only helps if learners can connect it to what they know (Activation)

Constraints¶

• Redundant on-screen text read aloud verbatim impairs learning by overloading the visual and auditory channels simultaneously [-S] — narration plus identical text is worse than narration alone for fluent readers
• Adding formats without integration (e.g., a diagram far from its explaining text) forces costly visual search and splits attention [-S]
• Multiple representations increase production and maintenance cost; applying them to low-stakes or easily-accessed content wastes effort better spent elsewhere [~M]
• For learners with strong prior knowledge, extra scaffolding representations can slow processing Guidance that helps novices can hinder experts (expertise reversal). [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Full UDL implementation: all materials designed from the start with format options (Accommodations built in rather than retrofitted)
• On-demand alternatives: a primary representation with optional supports — glossaries, translations, Audiobooks, Advance Organizers
• Learner-selected format: Choice Boards letting students pick text, audio, or video versions of the same content
• Segmenting and chunking: breaking dense media into learner-paced segments (Chunking)

Target Learners¶

• Learners with sensory, language, or processing differences who are blocked by a single default format [+M]
• Novices, who benefit from concrete visual models paired with verbal explanation Presenting material across visual and verbal channels improves learning over single-channel presentation. [+S]
• Multilingual learners, who benefit from vocabulary scaffolds and visual support alongside text
• Less beneficial to over-scaffold experts, who may find redundant formats inefficient Guidance that helps novices can hinder experts (expertise reversal). [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Foundational knowledge acquisition: making content accessible regardless of entry format
• Conceptual understanding: multiple representations support building flexible mental models Analogical and multi-case comparison improves transfer. [+M]
• Transfer: seeing the same idea in multiple forms supports recognizing it in novel contexts Analogical reasoning improves transfer. [+M]

Instructions¶

1. Identify the core content and the barriers embedded in the default representation (reading level, sensory modality, assumed background).
2. Design a second, functionally different representation — e.g., an annotated diagram, a narrated model, or an Analogy — and integrate it spatially and temporally with the first.
3. Add vocabulary and background supports: glossaries, plain-language summaries, Advance Organizers, or Activation prompts.
4. Ensure accessibility: captions, transcripts, alt text, logical heading structure.
5. Manage load: segment media, apply Chunking, and cut decorative media Coherence principle: irrelevant material hurts learning. [+S].
6. Offer format choice where feasible (Choice Boards) and check that each option leads to the same learning goal.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — representation only works if learners can connect it to existing knowledge
• Chunking Text — a load-management companion to multi-format presentation
• Use Worked Examples — a representation format that models both outcome and reasoning
• Act as a learning supporter during multimedia production
• Teach L2 comprehension through a multiliteracies curriculum with video-based visualizing and verbalizing activities
• Choose individual texts and videos appropriate for specific students rather than deciding by representational format
• Design CSCL environments for group awareness and representational guidance to cut coordination load

Examples¶

• CAST UDL Guidelines — the source framework for this strategy, with representation checkpoints for perception, language, and comprehension.
• Khan Academy — the same concept appears as narrated video, transcript, and worked text, letting learners switch formats.
• Newsela — publishes the same article at multiple reading levels, varying linguistic representation while holding content constant.
• Textbook with integrated figures — a well-designed anatomy text pairs every verbal description with a labeled diagram on the same spread, enacting integrated dual-channel presentation.

Key Sources¶

• CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511811678
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
• Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001
• Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4