Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
COMPARISON BETWEEN UDL AND COMPUTATIONAL THINKING - Coggle Diagram
COMPARISON BETWEEN UDL AND COMPUTATIONAL THINKING
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING
CLASSROOM EXAMPLES
Customising lessons by students’ interests (e.g., Pokémon-themed maths),
providing choice boards, offering audio/podcasts/infographics.
BENEFITS
More inclusive; supports diverse learners; students feel more autonomy; better
engagement.
HOW TECHNOLOGY FITS
Technology offers tools for choice (e.g., AI chatbots, text-to-audio, infographics),
multiple media formats, and flexible output modes.
FOCUS
To design learning experiences from the start that are accessible, engaging and
allow multiple ways of representation, action & expression.
LIMITATIONS
Requires careful lesson design; teacher professional development needed; some tech
tools may not be available or accessible in all contexts.
COMPUTATIONAL THINKING
HOW TECHNOLOGY FITS
Technology (micro:bit or similar) is used after hands-on foundation work, to apply
algorithmic/control thinking; screens may or may not be used.
CLASSROOM EXAMPLES
Using a screen-free Battleship grid to teach x/y coordinates, then moving to
micro:bit sprite movement using variables and tilt/buttons.
FOCUS
To equip learners with a way of thinking – breaking down problems, recognising
patterns, creating algorithms
BENEFIT
Builds transferable thinking skills; supports problem-solving; can leverage hands-on
and digital parts; adaptable even in low-tech settings.
LIMITATIONS
Without access to devices, tech part may be limited; screen-free parts may require material