By Faith Steward
A course can be technically accessible and thoughtfully inclusive and still work better for some learners than others.
When that idea really clicked for me, I felt both excited and a little uncomfortable. Excited because I had found a new way to think about learning design. Uncomfortable because I could immediately see places in my own work where I had made assumptions about learners without realizing I was making them.
A few months earlier, Targeted Universalism was not even in my vocabulary. After I was introduced to it, I spent several weeks learning about the framework and thinking about what it could mean for my work as a learning designer. Before long, I was mentally running courses, activities, assessments, scenarios, microlearning, and performance support through this new lens.
I started noticing things I had not been looking for before.
- A scenario might assume that the learner has authority to make the final decision
- An activity might require access to information that not every learner has
- An assessment question might reward familiarity with one work environment instead of the skill it is supposed to measure
- Course language might suggest there is one “right” way to complete a task when several approaches could lead to the same successful outcome
The learning could meet accessibility standards, use inclusive language, and represent varied learners while still making assumptions about where people were starting, what they had access to, and what they could realistically do with what they learned.
That was the part I could not stop thinking about.
I had spent years asking familiar design questions: Is this clear? Is it accessible? Does the activity support the objective? Can learners apply this on the job?
Targeted Universalism added another question: What are we assuming about the people who will use this?
That question has changed the way I approach learning design.
What Is Targeted Universalism?
Targeted Universalism, or TU, is a framework developed by the Othering & Belonging Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. The Institute describes TU as a strategy that starts with a universal goal and develops targeted approaches based on how different groups are situated in relation to that goal. The framework has been applied across policy, programs, classrooms, nonprofits, businesses, and other settings.
TU was not created as an instructional design model. However, I am adapting its principles here as a lens for learning design.
The core idea is straightforward: Start with a universal goal that everyone should have the opportunity to reach, then recognize that people may be situated differently in relation to that goal.
People may have different starting points, resources, experience, access, authority, support, and barriers. Because of those differences, giving everyone exactly the same strategy does not necessarily give everyone the same opportunity to reach the goal.
The formal TU framework uses five steps:
- Establish a universal goal
- Assess how the overall population is doing relative to that goal
- Identify groups and places that are differently situated relative to the goal
- Understand the structures that support or impede their progress
- Develop targeted strategies that help each group reach the universal goal
I was drawn to TU because it challenged a design habit that is easy to fall into: Give everyone the same learning experience and assume that path works for everyone.
But if everyone shares the same destination, do they necessarily have the same route to get there? The answer is usually no.
What TU Made Me Notice in My Own Work
I first deliberately used this lens while redesigning a self-paced course for a broad professional audience. Learners could have different roles, levels of experience, organizational contexts, resources, and degrees of authority. The subject matter is less important here than the design challenge: One learning experience needed to support people who shared a goal but were not all positioned the same way to reach it.
The course was already being developed with accessibility and inclusive design in mind, but TU prompted me to examine something different—the assumptions built into the learning itself.
As I worked through the redesign, I began noticing places where the experience could unintentionally assume that every learner would be leading the work, even though some might be contributing to or influencing it. I noticed places where one process could sound like the only correct approach, even when another could be equally effective. I also began questioning whether certain activities assumed access to people, information, or resources that every learner might not have.
One of the most useful shifts was also one of the simplest: Instead of designing activities and prompts primarily around the person with authority to make a decision, I began considering what meaningful application might look like for someone who could contribute, recommend, question, support, or influence. In other places, I adjusted language that could unintentionally present one approach as the correct approach when the learning goal allowed for more than one valid path.
Ultimately, I realized that a learner could understand the content perfectly, pass an assessment, and still encounter a barrier when trying to use what they learned. The learner was not necessarily missing something. The design was making assumptions about what that learner could do, where they were starting, and what they had access to.
That was the turning point for me. TU stopped being another framework I had learned about and became a mindset I could bring into everyday design decisions.
A 5-Step TU Lens for Learning Design
You do not need to overhaul an entire learning program to experiment with this approach. You can apply the lens to a course, an instructor-led session, microlearning, an assessment, a scenario, a job aid, or even one activity.
I translated the five formal TU steps into five questions I ask as a learning designer.
1. What Is the Shared Goal?
Start by getting very clear about the outcome you want learners to reach.
This sounds like familiar instructional design territory, but TU adds an important challenge: Have we defined the goal itself, or have we accidentally defined one preferred way of reaching it?
Imagine a customer service course intended to prepare employees to respond when a customer raises a concern.
The shared goal might be:
“Employees can take an appropriate next action when a customer raises a concern.”
Now compare that with:
“Employees will escalate customer concerns to their manager.”
The second statement has already prescribed a route. It assumes that the learner has an available manager, that escalation is always the appropriate action, and that the learner’s role gives them access to that option. In reality, one employee might be expected to resolve certain issues directly, while another might need to consult a resource or involve a supervisor.
The universal outcome is successfully handling the concern. The strategy for getting there can vary and still be correct.
Consider: Whether the outcome is genuinely shared or already contains assumptions about how learners should achieve it.
Ask: What should every learner ultimately be able to understand, decide, or do?
2. What Do We Actually Know About the Audience?
The second TU step assesses how the overall population is doing relative to the universal goal. For learning designers, that can mean pausing before we design around the learner we imagine in our heads and looking at what we actually know about the intended audience.
- What do needs assessments, performance data, learner feedback, observations, stakeholder input, or conversations tell us?
- Where is the audience already succeeding?
- Where are people struggling? What relevant knowledge or experience already exists?
Just as important: What do we not know?
This does not require a major research effort for every learning asset. A short conversation with learners or SMEs, when available; existing evaluation data; a few interviews; or feedback from a pilot may be enough to challenge an assumption before it becomes embedded in the design.
When direct access to learners is limited, the questions become even more important. We can use the information we do have, surface our assumptions, and ask stakeholders and SMEs probing questions rather than treating their perspective as a complete picture of the learner.
The goal is to replace “I think our learners probably…” with what we actually know, using as much real information as the project reasonably allows.
Consider: The evidence you already have about learner performance, experience, needs, and context.
Ask: What do I actually know about this audience relative to the goal, and what am I assuming?
3. How Might Learners Be Differently Situated?
An overall view of an audience can hide important differences. TU’s third step looks more closely at groups and contexts that are positioned differently in relation to the universal goal.
For learning designers, those differences might include:
- Prior experience
- Job responsibilities
- Decision-making authority
- Access to systems or information
- Available support, work environment
- Opportunities to practice and apply the skill
Suppose an activity asks learners to use performance data to make a decision. One group may have direct access to a dashboard and use it every week. Another may have access but little experience interpreting the information. A third may need to request the data from someone else.
The learning goal may still be appropriate for all of them. Designing as though they are all starting from the same place can create a barrier that has nothing to do with the skill we actually want them to learn.
This is also where learner voice matters. TU should not become an invitation for designers to sit at our desks and decide what different groups need based solely on our own perceptions. Feedback, pilot testing, interviews, observations, and other forms of learner input can tell us whether the differences we think we see are actually affecting the learning experience.
Consider: Differences that affect learners’ ability to engage with, demonstrate, or apply the intended learning.
Ask: Who can complete this learning as designed, and who may encounter a barrier unrelated to the actual skill or outcome?
4. What Assumptions or Barriers Have We Built In?
This was the TU step that changed my own design practice most.
Hidden barriers do not always look like barriers. Sometimes they look like completely reasonable training instructions:
- Select the best option for your team
- Review your department’s performance data
- Discuss your decision with your manager
- Use the tool to complete the next step
- Choose the correct process
Any of those instructions could be completely appropriate. The important question is what each one assumes.
Does the learner have the role or authority the activity assumes? Does everyone have access to the data, tools, people, or information the activity requires? Is there actually one correct process, or are there several valid approaches depending on the learner’s role and context?
This does not mean removing specificity or turning clear training into “do whatever works for you.” Clear guidance still matters. The goal is to distinguish between something that is essential for successful performance and something we have treated as essential because it reflects the context we happened to envision while designing.
When I used this lens on my own work, I changed language that centered learners with more authority, adjusted wording that made one route sound like the only correct approach, and reconsidered examples and activities to make sure learners with different roles, resources, or experience still had a realistic way to engage and apply what they learned.
The edits were small, but the shift in how I was thinking about the learner was much bigger.
Consider: The assumptions embedded in your language, scenarios, examples, technology, activities, and assessments.
Ask: Is this requirement essential to the learning goal, or did my design make it a requirement?
5. What Targeted Change Would Help?
When I first encountered the phrase “targeted strategies,” I imagined something much more complicated than what I eventually began doing in my learning designs. In an L&D context, a targeted response does not automatically require separate courses, elaborate branching, or personalized pathways for every possible learner.
Sometimes the better design change is surprisingly small.
You might offer more than one valid way to complete a practice activity, provide optional foundational information for learners who need additional context, or adjust an assessment so it measures the intended skill rather than familiarity with one work setting.
Instead of ending an activity with “Escalate the concern to your manager,” for example, we could ask, “Based on your role and the information available, what is the most appropriate next action?”
Possible actions might include resolving the issue, consulting a resource, gathering more information, involving a colleague, or escalating it. The learner is still being asked to demonstrate judgment—the design simply stops assuming that good judgment must look exactly the same for everyone.
Consider: The smallest change that would remove an unnecessary barrier while preserving the learning goal.
Ask: Does everyone need the same route, or do some learners need a different way to reach the same outcome?
Apply the Lens Throughout the Learning Design Process
One reason I became so invested in TU is that I could use the mindset in work I was already doing. I did not need to add a new phase to my design process.
eLearning & Instructor-Led Training
Consider the assumptions built into examples, scenarios, activities, and instructions.
Ask: Would the intended learning still be achievable for someone whose role, experience, resources, or work environment differs from the learner I initially imagined?
Assessments
Consider what each assessment item is actually measuring.
Ask: Does success demonstrate the intended knowledge or skill, or does it partly depend on familiarity with particular jargon, technology, organizational structures, or job roles?
Scenarios & Practice
Consider why a response has been labeled “correct.”
Ask: Does the skill truly require one action, or could differently situated learners demonstrate sound judgment through different actions?
Microlearning
Consider what may have been lost in the effort to simplify.
Ask: Have I accidentally presented one common strategy as a universal rule?
Job Aids & Performance Support
Consider what the resource requires at the moment of use.
Ask: Do learners have access to the same systems, information, people, authority, or resources? If not, does the tool acknowledge realistic alternatives?
The value of TU, at least for me, has not been another checklist to complete at the end of a project. It has been learning to notice different things while I am designing.
Try It on One Thing
You do not have to master every part of Targeted Universalism before its core questions can change how you look at a piece of learning.
Start with one objective, scenario, assessment question, activity, or resource and ask:
- What is the shared goal?
- What do I actually know about the audience relative to that goal?
- How might different learners or groups be situated differently in relation to it?
- What assumptions or barriers has the design introduced?
- What targeted change could remove an unnecessary barrier while preserving the goal?
You might discover that your original design works well. You might change one word, rewrite an assessment question, offer another path through an activity, or realize that something you thought was designed for “everyone” was actually designed around a version of everyone you had envisioned.
That discovery is worth making because once you can see the assumption, you can make a deliberate design choice about it.
Designing for the Goal, Not the ‘Typical Learner’
Before I encountered Targeted Universalism, accessibility and inclusive design were already important parts of how I approached learning. TU did not replace those practices—it strengthened them and added another lens through which I could question my work.
And it gave me one question that I keep returning to: Who does this work best for right now?
Maybe the answer is experienced learners. Maybe it is people with decision-making authority. Maybe it is learners with easy access to a particular tool.
Once I can see that, I can decide whether the difference is necessary or whether my design created it.
Learning designers make hundreds of small choices about language, examples, activities, assessments, resources, pathways, and expectations. Those choices determine more than whether someone can complete the learning—they influence whether learners can see a realistic way to use it.
The goal is not to anticipate every possible person, remove every difficulty, or build a different solution for every learner. It is to stop assuming that giving everyone the same path automatically gives everyone the same opportunity to reach the destination.
One goal can have more than one path.
Sometimes better learning design begins by noticing who the path was built for.
Learn to Create More Effective Learning at the Evidence-Informed Design Online Conference
Don’t miss the Evidence-Informed Design online conference, October 14–15, where keynote Nidhi Sachdeva will explore cognitive architecture as a foundation for effective design. Across six sessions, you’ll learn why and how to reduce extraneous load, write clearer narration, build reflection and practice into learning, and use feedback effectively. Register now; online conferences are free for Professional or Enterprise members!
Image credit: gremlin
