Universal Design in Early Literacy: A Scoping Review of Decodable Texts, Accessibility, and Diverse Learning Needs in Tanzanian Primary Schools

Abstract

Foundational literacy is central to participation and subsequent learning, yet the instructional routes through which beginning readers encounter print are not equally accessible to all learners. In Tanzania, renewed attention to systematic phonics and early-grade reading has increased the relevance of decodable texts: texts designed to give learners opportunities to apply previously taught grapheme–phoneme correspondences. Their instructional value, however, cannot be assessed only in terms of the linguistic structure of the text. Classroom activities, teacher directions, response requirements, assessment procedures, and available formats can either widen or restrict access. This scoping review maps literature and policy- and curriculum-related evidence concerning decodable or phonics-oriented early reading in Tanzanian primary education and examines the extent to which the evidence engages with accessibility, learner variability, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The review follows PRISMA-ScR and considers literature published between 2014 and 2026. The synthesis indicates a plausible pedagogical alignment between controlled text and the development of decoding, while also revealing a major gap in directly tested evidence on inclusive adaptations of decodable materials in Tanzania. Across the mapped literature, accessibility is more often treated as an implementation concern than as a design principle embedded in reading materials from the outset. The review therefore advances the concept of inclusive decodable-text pedagogy, in which systematic phonics is retained while unnecessary sensory, motor, speech, and communication barriers are reduced through multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement. Implications are developed for curriculum design, teacher education, classroom practice, formative assessment, and future research. The central conclusion is that decodability and accessibility should be treated as complementary properties: a text may be linguistically decodable yet still be instructionally inaccessible if participation depends on a single route that is unrelated to the intended literacy skill.