Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

Education SciencesEducation Sciences
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

1 September 2026

22 Pages

A Multidimensional Scale for Assessing UDL Incorporation in Preservice Teacher Preparation: Preliminary Psychometric Evidence from Ghanaian Teacher Educators

,
and
1
School of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, Arts, Business, Education and Law, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW 2751, Australia
2
Special Education Department, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates
3
Al-Faruq College of Education, Wenchi P.O. Box 146, Bono Region, Ghana
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci.2026, 16(9), 1404;https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16091404
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advancing Equity Through Inclusive Education: Theory, Policy and Practice
Version Notes
Review Reports
Order Reprints

Abstract

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is increasingly recognised as an evidence-based framework for promoting inclusive education through flexible curriculum design. In 2015, Ghana adopted UDL in its inclusive education policy to address the diverse educational needs of all children. However, existing research has not developed instruments to assess teacher educators’ incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation, particularly true in low- and middle-income countries. In this study, we developed and explored the factor structure of the UDL Incorporation Scale (UDL-IS) and examined teacher educators’ self-reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in their preparation of preservice teachers in Ghanaian colleges of education for future teaching. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 156 teacher educators from three public colleges of education in Ghana. The 36-item UDL-IS, which was developed using the Centre for Applied Special Technology (CAST) UDL Guidelines, was derived from considerations/checkpoints across the three core UDL principles of representation, engagement, and action and expression. We used descriptive statistics to summarise the data, reliability analysis to assess internal consistency, and exploratory factor analysis to examine the scale’s factor structure. The exploratory factor analysis provided preliminary evidence of a multidimensional structure comprising three empirically derived and conceptually interconnected dimensions: Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning; Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support; and Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning. These dimensions drew on practices across the original CAST principles rather than reproducing the theoretical three-domain structure. The three empirical dimensions demonstrated acceptable to excellent internal consistency. Among the 132 participants with complete data across the 35 retained items, teacher educators generally reported high incorporation of UDL-aligned practices. Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning recorded the highest mean, followed by Action, Expression, and Strategic Learner Support, while Engagement, Relevance, and Meaningful Learning recorded the lowest mean. Regression analyses showed distinct associations between selected demographic and professional characteristics and reported UDL incorporation across the empirical dimensions; however, most models were not statistically significant, and individual coefficients were therefore interpreted with caution. This study provides preliminary psychometric evidence for the UDL-IS as a measure of teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation and suggests that these practices may be organised around interconnected pedagogical dimensions within the Ghanaian teacher education context. Further research using larger, independent samples is needed to examine the factor structure through confirmatory factor analysis and provide additional evidence of the scale’s psychometric properties.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education has become a central focus within international education policy frameworks. Global agendas such as the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, adopted in 2015, reinforce this focus by framing education as a fundamental human right and a key driver of poverty and inequality reduction and social inclusion. At the heart of this agenda is Sustainable Development Goal 4, which seeks to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (UNESCO, 2017, p. 17). Inclusive education seeks to identify and remove barriers to participation and learning for all learners, regardless of disability, gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, language, migration status, or geographic location (UNESCO, 2024). Teacher preparation is widely recognised as a critical mechanism for advancing inclusive education within this global discourse, because teachers translate policy into classroom practice. Both initial teacher education and ongoing professional development are therefore essential for implementing inclusive education effectively (Florian & Camedda, 2020; UNESCO, 2024).
In response to these global priorities, Ghana has undertaken significant reforms to incorporate inclusive education goals in its education system. These efforts include adopting a national inclusive education policy to address the diverse learning needs of all children (Ministry of Education, 2015; Nketsia, 2018). In addition, Ghana has restructured its initial teacher education system by transitioning from diploma-awarding colleges of education to a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree programme (Ministry of Education, 2016b). Central to these reforms is the expectation that teachers will be equipped with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required to effectively implement inclusive education (Ministry of Education, 2016a).
Despite these policy commitments, research from both global and local contexts highlights persistent challenges in translating inclusive education policies into practice. Evidence suggests that many preservice teachers graduate without sufficient conceptual clarity or pedagogical competence to effectively implement inclusive approaches (Walton & Rusznyak, 2020). In many instances, inclusive education is only superficially embedded within teacher education curricula, with limited emphasis on applied pedagogical skills (Pugach et al., 2020), leaving teachers underprepared to respond to diverse learner needs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). UDL has emerged as a prominent framework for implementing inclusive education. It provides a comprehensive framework for responding to learner diversity through the proactive design of curricula that minimise barriers to participation and achievement. Central to its contribution is a shift away from deficit-oriented views of learners toward a focus on the design of flexible and inclusive learning environments that accommodate learner variability from the outset. A growing body of research indicates that UDL enhances student engagement, inclusion, and academic outcomes across a wide range of educational contexts (Almeqdad et al., 2023; Capp, 2017; Moriña et al., 2025). However, there is a significant gap in the literature, especially in relation to understanding how UDL is interpreted and implemented within teacher education programmes.

1.1. Conceptual Frameworks

UDL is not rooted in a single theoretical tradition; rather, it integrates perspectives from neuroscience, psychology, and education. Its theoretical foundation is strongly informed by cognitive neuroscience, which conceptualises learning as involving interconnected neural networks, commonly described as affective, recognition, and strategic systems. These underpin UDL’s three core principles: multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (Sewell et al., 2022). Engagement relates to learners’ motivation, representation concerns how information is perceived and processed, and action and expression refer to how learners demonstrate their understanding. Together, these principles provide a rationale for a flexible instructional design that accommodates differences in how learners experience and respond to teaching. The three core principles together provide a structured approach to addressing learner variability through flexible curriculum design (CAST, 2024).
Piaget’s (1970) constructivist theory further strengthens the conceptual basis of UDL by emphasising the active role of learners in constructing knowledge through interactions with their environment, prior experiences, and social contexts. In line with this perspective, UDL promotes student-centred learning environments that support active engagement, flexibility, and learner choice (Lee & Griffin, 2021; Unluol Unal et al., 2022). Empirical evidence suggests that UDL-informed practices enhance lesson design and foster interactive and inclusive classroom environments (Scott et al., 2022), thereby translating constructivist principles into practical instructional strategies.
Another closely related concept is Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist theory, which highlights the importance of social interaction, collaboration, and scaffolding in learning. UDL reflects these ideas by encouraging collaborative learning opportunities and providing support to enable learners to build on existing knowledge. This perspective extends to teacher education, where collaborative and reflective professional learning approaches have been shown to strengthen educators’ understanding and application of UDL (Craig et al., 2022; Hromalik et al., 2024), reinforcing its relevance for both student learning and teacher development.
Differentiated instruction theory also informs UDL, particularly through its emphasis on learner variability. While differentiated instruction focuses on adapting instruction in response to individual needs (Tomlinson, 2017), UDL advances a more proactive approach by encouraging educators to anticipate variability and design flexible learning environments from the outset (Ok et al., 2017). Systematic reviews indicate that UDL can improve access to the curriculum and support diverse learners, although its effectiveness depends on the quality of implementation (Almeqdad et al., 2023; Ok et al., 2017). In this respect, UDL extends and strengthens the principles of differentiated instruction by embedding flexibility into curriculum design.
Despite UDL’s strong theoretical grounding and growing empirical support, important gaps remain in the literature. First, although UDL is commonly organised around engagement, representation, and action and expression, it remains unclear whether these theoretically defined domains operate as distinct measurable dimensions when translated into survey items. Although the CAST UDL Guidelines provide a widely used framework for designing inclusive and flexible curricula, they were originally developed as a design and instructional planning tool rather than as a psychometric measurement instrument. Consequently, there is limited empirical evidence on whether UDL principles form a stable and interpretable latent factor structure when operationalised through survey measures, particularly in teacher education contexts. This raises important questions about how UDL can be rigorously measured, evaluated, and compared across studies.
Second, the successful implementation of UDL depends heavily on teacher educators, whose instructional decisions, curriculum choices, and professional guidance shape how preservice teachers understand and apply inclusive pedagogy. Research indicates that structured professional learning is essential for preservice teachers to develop the pedagogical knowledge and instructional design capacities required to embed UDL effectively in their teaching (Smith et al., 2019). When teacher educators explicitly incorporate UDL principles, they shape preservice teachers’ understanding, beliefs, and readiness to adopt inclusive pedagogies in their own practice (Loughran, 2019; Vitelli, 2015).
Understanding teacher educators’ engagement with UDL is therefore critical. Their knowledge, confidence, and instructional approaches directly influence how preservice teachers experience and apply inclusive pedagogies (Rao & Meo, 2016). However, little is known about how teacher educators perceive the integration of UDL into curriculum design, pedagogical preparation, and professional learning within teacher education programmes. Third, although scholarly attention to how initial teacher education programmes prepare preservice teachers for inclusive practice is growing in Ghana (Nketsia & Opoku, 2024), how UDL specifically is conceptualised and enacted within Ghana’s recently reformed teacher education curriculum remains largely unexamined. Examining teacher educators’ self-reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation provides valuable insight into how they support preservice teachers’ readiness for inclusive teaching. These dimensions are particularly important for informing curriculum design and strengthening professional development structures within teacher education (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016; Florian & Camedda, 2020).
Taken together, these limitations show the need for empirical evidence on how teacher educators understand, apply, and measure UDL principles within Ghanaian teacher education programmes. In response to these gaps, this study assesses teacher educators’ self-reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation within Ghana’s colleges of education. In addition, the study examines whether these dimensions align with an underlying latent structure derived from the CAST UDL framework when measured through survey items. By doing so, this study contributes to both theoretical and methodological advancements in UDL research, addresses the need for more robust, empirically grounded approaches to conceptualising and measuring UDL in teacher education (Smith et al., 2019), and generates practical insights to enhance the integration of inclusive pedagogies in teacher preparation programmes.

1.2. Current Study: Context and Aim

In 2015, Ghana developed a policy on inclusive education that specifically stated that the diverse educational needs of all Ghanaian school children must be addressed using UDL principles (Ministry of Education, 2015). Moreover, the new Teacher Education Curriculum Framework in Ghana aims to train teachers to apply UDL strategies to improve the learning outcomes of all learners (Ministry of Education, 2016a). Additionally, policy documents developed by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Ghana and the Ghana Education Service, with support from the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), outline plans to embed UDL within teacher education and national policy frameworks (Inclusive Development Partners, 2020). These efforts indicate a growing policy and professional learning commitment to inclusive pedagogical approaches.
However, past studies have not surveyed teacher educators’ self-reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation, particularly in contexts in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Existing research has only considered international stakeholder perspectives, recommending that UDL should be mainstreamed into teacher education to build the capacity of teachers and support inclusive education in LMICs (McKenzie et al., 2023). One mixed-methods case involving a Ghanaian higher education course noted positive UDL impacts on learner engagement and inclusivity, suggesting the framework’s potential to enrich instructional practices aligned with CAST principles. However, much of this work either focuses on policy/practice guidance or general educator beliefs, and there remains a clear gap in systematic research that explores what teacher educators teach/instruct preservice teachers to do regarding UDL, using the CAST Guidelines as a conceptual anchor.
To address this gap, the present study examined the latent structure of the incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in Ghanaian teacher education using a survey of teacher educators derived from the CAST UDL Guidelines, focusing on teacher educators’ self-reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation. Specifically, we tested whether the responses aligned with the three UDL principles (engagement, representation, and action and expression).
Based on this aim, the study addresses the following research questions:
  • To what extent do teacher educators report incorporating UDL-aligned practices in the preparation of preservice teachers in Ghana’s colleges of education?
  • What is the empirical factor structure of the UDL-IS, developed from the CAST UDL Guidelines, to assess teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation?
  • What demographic and professional characteristics are associated with teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation in Ghana’s colleges of education?

2. Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study employed a quantitative cross-sectional survey design to investigate teacher educators’ self-reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in their preparation of preservice teachers for future teaching within Ghanaian colleges of education. A cross-sectional design was considered appropriate because it enabled data collection from a relatively large number of participants at a single point in time (Creswell & Creswell, 2022) and allowed the examination of the underlying factor structure of the newly developed UDL-IS, the extent to which UDL principles are perceived to be incorporated, and the demographic and professional factors (e.g., years of teaching experience, prior UDL training/exposure, etc.) associated with these perceptions.

2.2. Study Participants

The study included 156 tutors and lecturers from three colleges of education located in Central, North East, and Western Ghana. Participants represented diverse demographic and professional backgrounds (Table 1). Slightly more than half of the participants were male (53%, n = 83), 42% (n = 66) were female, and 5% (n = 7) preferred not to disclose their gender. Participants were relatively evenly distributed across the four age categories, with the largest proportions aged below 29 years (28%) and 40–49 years (28%). Most participants specialised in humanities (52%), with the remainder specialising in STEM disciplines (48%). Nearly two-thirds (64%) taught at only one programme level, whereas 23% taught across two levels and 13% taught across three or four levels. Most participants (58%) taught three or more courses, and the majority held the rank of assistant lecturer (64%), followed by tutor (21%) and lecturer (14%). Only 1% were senior lecturers. Regarding educational qualifications, 74% possessed a master’s degree, 21% held a bachelor’s degree, and 5% had completed a doctoral degree. Most participants had less than five years of teaching experience in colleges of education (63%). While 41% reported that they were currently teaching students with disabilities, only 42% had previously received an introduction to UDL. Over three-quarters (77%) had completed at least one course in inclusive education or special needs education.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (Teacher Educators).

2.3. Instrument

A two-part instrument was used for data collection. The first section collected the participants’ demographic information (see Table 1). The second section of the survey assessed participants’ self-reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation. The UDL Incorporation Scale (UDL-IS) was specifically developed for this study using the CAST UDL Guidelines Version 3.0 as the primary conceptual framework (CAST, 2024). The instrument development followed a deductive approach to scale construction (DeVellis, 2016), whereby each item was generated directly from the considerations/checkpoints across the three UDL principles of multiple means of engagement, multiple means of representation, and multiple means of action and expression. The initial pool consisted of 36 items designed to assess the extent to which teacher educators reported instructing preservice teachers to use UDL-aligned practices in their teaching. To align the CAST-derived items with the teacher education context and the specific construct being assessed, the common stem, “I instruct my preservice teachers to provide their students with options for:”, was applied to the items. Thus, the UDL-IS assesses what teacher educators report instructing preservice teachers to do in relation to UDL-aligned classroom practices; it does not directly assess teacher educators’ own use or modelling of UDL or institution- or programme-level UDL implementation. Items were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores represented greater reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices. To obtain evidence of content validity, the draft instrument was reviewed by five experts in inclusive education, curriculum studies, educational measurement, and teacher education. The experts were selected because their areas of expertise were directly relevant to the theoretical, pedagogical, and measurement foundations of the instrument. Reviewers evaluated each item for clarity, relevance, representativeness, and alignment with the CAST UDL Guidelines. The review did not result in substantial changes to the intended meaning of the CAST-derived items. The revised instrument was pilot-tested with 20 teacher educators who were not included in the main study. The pilot examined the clarity and comprehensibility of the items and response format and provided preliminary evidence of internal consistency reliability. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with coefficients exceeding 0.70, indicating acceptable preliminary reliability. Participants indicated that the items and instructions were clear and understandable, and no major revisions were required. The resulting 36-item UDL-IS was subsequently administered in the main study. Following the exploratory factor analysis, one item was removed, resulting in the final 35-item, three-factor solution reported in this study.

2.4. Data Collection Procedure

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at Western Sydney University, Australia (H16458), and the Ghana Education Service. Three colleges of education were selected based on accessibility and participant availability. Following the approval process, ethics documentation was shared with the principals of the participating institutions, and formal permission to conduct the study was obtained from each college.
The first author visited the selected institutions to introduce the study, provide relevant information, and invite teacher educators to participate. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection. Survey packages comprising the questionnaire and the participant information sheet were distributed in sealed envelopes. Secure collection boxes were placed at designated locations within each institution to facilitate the anonymous return of completed questionnaires. Participants were given two weeks to consider participation and complete the survey.
Data were collected in English, Ghana’s official language of instruction. Each survey package included a cover letter outlining the study’s objectives, ethical considerations, and instructions for completion. Participants were informed that participation was entirely voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time without consequence. No incentives were offered for participation. To protect confidentiality, participants were assured that their identities and affiliations would remain anonymous in all reports, presentations, and publications arising from the study. Completed questionnaires were checked for completeness before being entered into IBM SPSS Statistics Version 31 for analysis.

2.5. Data Analysis

Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 31. Before the main analyses, the dataset was screened for missing values, outliers, normality, and multicollinearity. The analysis proceeded in four stages. First, descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were computed to describe the participants’ demographic information. Second, the psychometric properties of the newly developed UDL-IS were examined. Construct validity was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Before extraction, sampling adequacy was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) statistic and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Principal axis factoring was employed because the analysis sought to identify latent constructs rather than maximise explained variance (Hair et al., 2022). As the three UDL principles were theoretically expected to be correlated, an oblique (direct oblimin) rotation was employed (Fabrigar et al., 1999).
Factor retention decisions were informed by eigenvalues greater than one, scree plot inspection, parallel analysis, theoretical coherence, and interpretability of the factor solution. Items with factor loadings below 0.40 or substantial cross-loadings were identified for further evaluation. Following item evaluation, the final EFA retained 35 items and yielded three empirically derived factors: Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning; Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support; and Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning. Internal consistency reliability was subsequently examined for each of the three empirical factors and the overall 35-item scale. Descriptive statistics were computed to examine overall perceived UDL incorporation and perceived incorporation across the three empirically derived factors. Mean factor scores were calculated for Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning; Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support; and Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning. Differences among the three factor means were also examined using a one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons used to examine significant differences between factor means. Mauchly’s test was used to assess the assumption of sphericity. Finally, multiple regression analyses were undertaken to determine whether teacher educators’ demographic and professional characteristics are associated with perceived incorporation of UDL-aligned practices. Separate multiple regression models were estimated for overall UDL incorporation and each of the three empirically derived factors. The same demographic and professional characteristics were entered simultaneously in each model to facilitate comparison across the four outcomes. Characteristics with more than two categories were dummy-coded using appropriate reference categories. The assumptions of linearity, multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, normality of residuals, and independence of errors were examined before interpreting the regression models. Statistical significance was evaluated using an alpha level of 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis of UDL-IS

To examine the underlying factor structure of the UDL-IS derived from the CAST UDL Guidelines, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. KMO values above 0.60 indicate acceptable sampling adequacy, while values above 0.80 indicate meritorious adequacy. Likewise, a statistically significant Bartlett’s test indicated that the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis.
The results indicated that the data were suitable for EFA. The KMO value was 0.789, exceeding the recommended minimum threshold of 0.60, suggesting adequate sampling adequacy. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant, χ2(595) = 6823.49, p < 0.001, indicating that the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. The determinant of the correlation matrix (9.826 × 10−26) suggested substantial inter-item relationships among the UDL practices. These results supported the appropriateness of conducting an exploratory factor analysis (Henson & Roberts, 2006).
Following confirmation that the data were suitable for factor analysis, communalities were examined to determine the proportion of variance explained by the extracted factors. Most items demonstrated acceptable communalities (>0.30); one item (“Making sure text and symbols don’t get in the way of the learning goal”) demonstrated a communality below 0.30 and was therefore removed. Overall, the revised analysis of the remaining 35 items demonstrated acceptable communalities (>0.30) (see Table 2).
Table 2. Communalities for the 35-Item UDL-IS Assessing Reported UDL Incorporation in Preservice Teacher Preparation.
The revised analysis of the remaining 35 items produced a stable three-factor solution that converged after eight iterations. The retained three-factor solution explained 67.06% of the common variance. Factor 1 explained 50.98%, Factor 2 explained an additional 11.30%, and Factor 3 accounted for a further 4.79% of the variance. Although the eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion suggested additional factors, the three-factor solution was retained because it aligned with the theoretical organisation of the CAST UDL Guidelines, was supported by inspection of the scree plot, and produced the most interpretable and conceptually coherent factor structure. The retained solution also preserved adequate representation of all major UDL principles while avoiding unnecessary fragmentation of conceptually related instructional practices.
Factor 1 comprised 18 items and was characterised by instructional practices that promoted learner engagement, meaningful participation, relevance, agency and accessible understanding. Primary loadings ranged from 0.446 to 0.928. Although several items reflected the CAST principle of Engagement, the factor also included practices associated with representation, language and comprehension. The factor was therefore interpreted as Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning, rather than as a pure replication of the theoretical Engagement principle. Factor 2 comprised 13 items and captured practices related to communication, learner expression, goal setting, planning, scaffolding, accessibility and strategic support. Primary loadings ranged from 0.512 to 0.992. This factor was interpreted as Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support. It corresponded most closely with the CAST principle of Action and Expression, while also incorporating institutional and instructional supports that facilitated learner agency. Factor 3 was the smallest dimension and comprised four items associated with reflection, progress monitoring, effort, interpersonal learning and accessibility. Primary loadings ranged from 0.356 to 0.617. The factor was labelled Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning (see Table 3).
Table 3. Pattern coefficients for the retained 35-item three-factor solution.
The empirical organisation did not reproduce the three CAST principles as completely discrete dimensions. Instead, the items clustered into broader, contextually situated domains. The results therefore support the multidimensional nature of the UDL-IS while also demonstrating substantial conceptual interconnectedness among the UDL-aligned practices that teacher educators report incorporating in preservice teacher preparation (see Table 3).
The three factors were positively correlated. Factor 1 correlated moderately with Factor 2, r = 0.520, while weaker correlations were observed between Factor 1 and Factor 3, r = 0.306, and between Factor 2 and Factor 3, r = 0.260 (see Table 4). The correlations supported the use of an oblique rotation. They indicated that the factors shared common variance while remaining sufficiently distinguishable to be interpreted as related dimensions of teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation (see Table 4).
Table 4. EFA Factor Correlations.

3.2. Internal Consistency Reliability

The internal consistency of the three empirically derived factors and the overall 35-item UDL-IS was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α) (see Table 5). A coefficient of 0.70 or above is generally considered indicative of acceptable internal consistency, although slightly lower coefficients may be considered adequate for shorter scales and in exploratory instrument development (Field, 2018; Hair et al., 2022). The results demonstrated satisfactory to excellent internal consistency across the three factors.
Table 5. Internal Consistency Reliability of the UDL-IS.

3.3. Perceived Incorporation of UDL-Aligned Practices Across the Empirically Derived Dimensions

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the three dimensions identified through the EFA using the 132 participants with complete data across the 35 retained items (see Table 5). Overall perceived UDL incorporation was relatively high (M = 4.74, SD = 0.75). Among the three empirically derived dimensions, Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning recorded the highest mean (M = 4.91, SD = 0.68), followed by Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support (M = 4.85, SD = 0.86). Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning recorded the comparatively lowest mean (M = 4.63, SD = 0.86), although the score remained relatively high. These descriptive findings suggest that participants reported stronger incorporation of practices associated with reflective and socially responsive learning and strategic learner support than practices captured by the engagement, relevance and meaningful learning dimension. However, given the concentration of the mean scores toward the upper end of the response scale, particularly for Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning and Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support, these descriptive differences should be interpreted cautiously.

3.4. Differences Across Empirically Derived UDL Dimensions

A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to examine whether perceived UDL incorporation differed across the three empirically derived dimensions. The analysis included 132 participants with complete data across the 35 retained items. Descriptively, Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning recorded the highest mean (M = 4.91, SD = 0.68), followed by Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support (M = 4.85, SD = 0.86), while Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning recorded the lowest mean (M = 4.63, SD = 0.86). Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was satisfied, W = 0.996, χ2(2) = 0.53, p = 0.768. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of UDL dimension, F (2, 262) = 10.96, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.077, indicating that reported incorporation differed across the three dimensions.
Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons showed that Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning was significantly lower than Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support (mean difference = −0.22, SE = 0.06, p = 0.002, 95% CI [−0.37, −0.07]) and Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning (mean difference = −0.28, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.43, −0.13]). In contrast, the difference between Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support and Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning was not statistically significant (mean difference = −0.06, SE = 0.06, p = 1.000, 95% CI [−0.21, 0.10]). These findings indicate that participants reported comparatively lower incorporation of practices relating to engagement, relevance and meaningful learning, whereas practices associated with strategic learner support and reflective and socially responsive learning were reported at statistically comparable levels.

3.5. Factors Associated with UDL Incorporation

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine whether teacher educators’ demographic and professional characteristics were associated with overall UDL incorporation and the three empirically derived dimensions of the UDL-IS. The same set of 13 demographic and professional characteristics was entered simultaneously in each model (see Table 6). The model examining factors associated with overall UDL incorporation explained 13.5% of the variance (R2 = 0.135, adjusted R2 = 0.040), although the overall model was not statistically significant, F (13, 118) = 1.42, p = 0.161. At the individual coefficient level, affiliation with Languages relative to Education was negatively associated with overall UDL incorporation (B = −0.646, β = −0.318, p = 0.004), whereas prior introduction to UDL was positively associated with overall incorporation (B = 0.346, β = 0.230, p = 0.044).
Table 6. Multiple Regression Analyses of Factors Associated with Reported UDL Incorporation.
For Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning, the demographic and professional characteristics set explained 14.5% of the variance (R2 = 0.145, adjusted R2 = 0.051), but the overall model was not statistically significant, F (13, 118) = 1.54, p = 0.113. Languages relative to Education were negatively associated with the factor (B = −0.672, β = −0.287, p = 0.009), while prior introduction to UDL was positively associated with it (B = 0.418, β = 0.242, p = 0.034). The model examining factors associated with Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support explained 11.4% of the variance (R2 = 0.114, adjusted R2 = 0.016) and was not statistically significant, F (13, 118) = 1.17, p = 0.312. Languages relative to Education was the only coefficient reaching conventional statistical significance (B = −0.620, β = −0.263, p = 0.019).
In contrast, the model examining factors associated with Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning was statistically significant, F (13, 118) = 2.01, p = 0.026, accounting for 18.1% of the variance (R2 = 0.181, adjusted R2 = 0.091). STEM specialisation relative to Humanities was negatively associated with this factor (B = −0.420, β = −0.310, p = 0.035), as was affiliation with Languages relative to Education (B = −0.614, β = −0.331, p = 0.002). The remaining coefficients were not statistically significant. Because the omnibus tests for the overall UDL, Engagement/Relevance/Meaningful Learning, and Action/Expression/Strategic Learner Support models were non-significant, significant individual coefficients within these models were interpreted cautiously.

4. Discussion

This study developed and explored the factor structure of the UDL-IS and examined teacher educators’ perceptions of the incorporation of UDL-aligned practices within teacher education in Ghanaian colleges of education. It further investigated whether demographic and professional characteristics are associated with teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation in Ghana’s colleges of education. Three major findings emerged. First, the EFA provided preliminary evidence that the UDL-IS captures a multidimensional construct comprising three empirically derived and conceptually interconnected dimensions: Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning; Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support; and Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning. Although these dimensions draw on practices across the three CAST UDL principles, they do not reproduce the original theoretical structure. Second, teacher educators generally reported high levels of incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in their preparation of preservice teachers, although the extent of reported incorporation varied across the three empirically derived dimensions. These high ratings should, however, be interpreted cautiously, given the concentration of responses toward the upper end of the scale. This pattern suggests the possibility of ceiling effects, which can limit the ability of survey instruments to discriminate among respondents with relatively high levels of endorsement (Chyung et al., 2020) and may also reflect acquiescence or social desirability bias associated with self-report measures of positively valued educational and inclusive practices (Kreitchmann et al., 2019; Lüke & Grosche, 2018). The findings should therefore be understood as reflecting teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices rather than direct evidence of their actual enactment in preservice teacher preparation. Third, the regression analyses revealed differentiated patterns across these dimensions, with departmental affiliation, specialisation, and prior exposure to UDL showing associations with aspects of reported UDL incorporation. Collectively, these findings contribute to the growing international literature on UDL by extending attention to how teacher educators incorporate UDL-aligned practices in preparing preservice teachers for diverse and inclusive classrooms.
The EFA provided encouraging preliminary evidence regarding the psychometric quality of the 35-item UDL Incorporation Scale. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic and Bartlett’s test of sphericity confirmed that the data were suitable for factor analysis, while the retained three-factor solution explained a substantial proportion of the common variance. However, the empirical structure did not reproduce the original CAST domains of Representation, Engagement, and Action and Expression exactly. Instead, the items clustered into three broader and contextually meaningful dimensions: Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning; Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support; and Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning. This pattern suggests that teacher educators may understand and enact UDL practices in a more integrated manner than the original theoretical categories imply. Items developed from different CAST principles frequently loaded together, indicating that practices related to representation, engagement, accessibility, learner agency, communication, reflection, and strategic support may operate simultaneously within teacher education. This is consistent with the view that the UDL principles are complementary and mutually reinforcing rather than fully independent components of instructional design (CAST, 2024). Although several items demonstrated cross-loadings, most had satisfactory communalities and strong primary loadings. Overall, the findings suggest that the extracted structure reflects the interconnected and context-sensitive nature of how UDL-aligned practices are incorporated in preservice teacher preparation, rather than a weakness in the underlying framework.
The findings also highlight the complexity of translating a conceptual framework into an instrument for measuring teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation. Previous research has predominantly examined teachers’ attitudes toward UDL, classroom implementation, or the effectiveness of professional development, whereas relatively few studies have attempted to measure the extent to which UDL is embedded across teacher education programmes (Ok et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2019). By examining teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation, this study extends existing research beyond general discussions of classroom practice and professional development, offering preliminary evidence that the CAST framework can inform the development of a contextually relevant instrument for assessing how teacher educators incorporate UDL-aligned practices into the preparation of preservice teachers. The cross-loading items indicate that further refinement is required to improve conceptual distinctiveness and strengthen the measurement properties of the scale. Such refinement is consistent with recommended procedures for early-stage instrument development, where EFA serves to identify items requiring revision before confirmatory validation (DeVellis, 2016; Hair et al., 2022).
Beyond the psychometric findings, this study indicates that teacher educators generally report incorporating UDL-aligned practices in their preparation of preservice teachers in Ghanaian colleges of education. Across the empirically derived dimensions, Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning recorded the highest mean, followed by Action, Expression, and Strategic Learner Support, while Engagement, Relevance, and Meaningful Learning recorded the lowest mean. Although these differences were statistically significant, as indicated earlier, the generally high scores across all three dimensions should be interpreted cautiously given their concentration toward the upper end of the response scale. Rather than indicating the extent of actual UDL enactment, the findings reflect teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation. The findings nevertheless provide a more differentiated picture than the original CAST-domain comparison, suggesting that these reported practices may be organised around integrated pedagogical dimensions within the Ghanaian teacher education context. These findings are consistent with Ghana’s transition to the B.Ed. curriculum, which places greater emphasis on reflective practice, inquiry-based learning, school-based experiences, and competency-based teacher preparation (Amegah et al., 2024). Similar developments have been reported internationally, where teacher education programmes increasingly promote authentic learning experiences that encourage future teachers to actively engage in constructing professional knowledge rather than relying exclusively on traditional lecture-based approaches (Florian & Camedda, 2020; Moriña et al., 2025).
The comparatively lower rating for Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning should not be interpreted as indicating limited incorporation of UDL-aligned practices, given that this dimension also recorded a relatively high mean. Rather, the finding indicates that teacher educators reported a comparatively lower incorporation of practices related to this dimension than those associated with Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning and Action, Expression, and Strategic Learner Support. However, given the concentration of scores toward the upper end of the response scale, these relative differences should be interpreted cautiously. Because this empirical factor integrates practices concerned with learner engagement, relevance, meaningful connections, agency, and related aspects drawn from across the original CAST principles, the finding further supports the EFA evidence that UDL-aligned practices may operate in interconnected ways in preservice teacher preparation. Strengthening opportunities for teacher educators to emphasise learners’ experiences, interests, prior knowledge, agency, and meaningful learning contexts in their preparation of preservice teachers may further support the incorporation of practices associated with this dimension.
Another important finding concerns the factors associated with the incorporation of UDL-aligned practices. The regression analyses showed that demographic and professional characteristics had different relationships with the overall UDL score and the three empirical dimensions. The model examining factors associated with overall UDL incorporation explained 13.5% of the variance but was not statistically significant. Similarly, the models for Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning and Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support were not statistically significant overall. Consequently, significant individual coefficients within these models should be interpreted cautiously. Nevertheless, two patterns warrant attention. First, prior introduction to UDL was positively associated with overall UDL incorporation and with Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning. Teacher educators who had previously been introduced to UDL reported higher perceived incorporation on these outcomes than those without previous exposure. This finding is consistent with a growing body of international evidence suggesting that sustained and structured professional learning can support teacher educators in incorporating UDL-aligned practices into preservice teacher preparation by helping them translate theoretical knowledge into practice (Craig et al., 2022; Moriña et al., 2025; Rusconi & Squillaci, 2023; Zhang et al., 2024). Research consistently indicates that educators who receive explicit training in UDL are more likely to redesign curriculum, employ flexible instructional strategies, and develop confidence in responding to learner variability than those whose preparation focuses solely on general principles of inclusive education (Capp, 2017; Rao & Meo, 2016). The present findings therefore suggest that explicit exposure to UDL may be particularly relevant to teacher educators’ reported incorporation of practices concerned with engagement, relevance, and meaningful learning in preservice teacher preparation, although this association was not consistent across all three empirical dimensions.
Departmental affiliation was associated with teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices, with those from Languages reporting lower levels than those from Education across the overall scale and the three empirical dimensions. This difference was particularly evident for Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning, for which the overall regression model was statistically significant. These findings may point to disciplinary differences in opportunities to encounter and incorporate inclusive pedagogical practices in preservice teacher preparation. This interpretation aligns with recent research suggesting that the incorporation of UDL may be associated not only with individual characteristics but also with educators’ knowledge of inclusive pedagogy, professional learning cultures, curriculum structures, and disciplinary teaching traditions (Timuș et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). It also resonates with broader teacher education scholarship showing that equity and inclusion may be embedded differently across programmes and institutional contexts (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016).
Furthermore, reviews of UDL in higher education have highlighted substantial variation in how UDL is operationalised and incorporated across educational contexts, suggesting that disciplinary and institutional environments may shape educators’ engagement with the framework (Ren et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2024). Humanities and Education disciplines may offer more frequent opportunities for critical reflection, dialogue, and socially responsive learning, whereas other disciplines may prioritise different pedagogical approaches. However, because the study was not designed to examine disciplinary mechanisms directly, and because the omnibus models for overall UDL incorporation and two of the three dimensions were not statistically significant, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Further research is needed to determine whether the observed differences reflect variations in professional learning opportunities, disciplinary pedagogies, curriculum structures, or broader institutional factors that influence UDL incorporation.
Interestingly, neither the highest educational qualification nor previous study of inclusive education or special needs education was significantly associated with teacher educators’ reported overall incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation. This finding suggests that traditional teacher preparation and postgraduate qualifications alone may not necessarily be associated with greater reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation. While inclusive education courses often emphasise disability awareness, policy, and differentiated instruction, they may devote comparatively less attention to curriculum design through the specific lens of UDL. Similar observations have been reported internationally, where teacher educators frequently express positive attitudes toward inclusion but have limited confidence in transferring these principles into universally designed teaching practices (Florian & Camedda, 2020; Smith et al., 2019). Consequently, integrating explicit UDL content within both preservice and in-service professional learning may be more influential than relying solely on broader inclusive education coursework.
Taken together, the findings suggest that strengthening the incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation requires more than curriculum reform. Although Ghana’s teacher education reforms appear to have strengthened learner-centred pedagogies, greater incorporation of UDL-aligned practices may require sustained institutional commitment, accessible learning resources, collaborative curriculum design, and continuous professional development for teacher educators. The empirically derived dimensions further suggest that teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation may be understood as an interconnected set of practices involving meaningful engagement, strategic learner support, reflection, and socially responsive learning, rather than as three entirely separate theoretical domains. These findings also extend international scholarship by demonstrating that UDL should be viewed not only as a classroom framework but also as a programme-level approach capable of informing curriculum design, teacher preparation, and institutional quality enhancement. As countries continue to strengthen inclusive education in pursuit of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 and the UNESCO Salamanca and Inclusion agendas, embedding UDL systematically within teacher education programmes will be essential for preparing teachers to become capable of designing equitable and accessible learning environments for increasingly diverse classrooms.

5. Implications

The findings have several important implications. First, they provide preliminary evidence that teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation can be examined using a theoretically informed instrument, offering a foundation for further refinement and validation of the UDL-IS. The emergence of three empirically derived dimensions that did not correspond exactly with the original CAST domains also suggests that the measurement of UDL incorporation in preservice teacher preparation should be sensitive to the ways in which UDL-aligned practices intersect and cluster within educational contexts. Second, the findings highlight the need for teacher education institutions to move beyond the awareness of inclusive education toward the explicit integration of UDL within curriculum design, assessment, and professional learning. Third, the positive association between prior introduction to UDL and both overall UDL incorporation and Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning suggests that Ministries of Education, teacher education regulators, and colleges of education should prioritise sustained UDL-focused professional development rather than isolated workshops. Professional learning may be particularly valuable when it provides teacher educators with practical opportunities to design relevant and meaningful learning experiences, promote learner agency, and connect teaching with diverse learners’ experiences and needs. Finally, the recurring lower scores among teacher educators in Languages relative to Education, together with the lower scores of STEM specialists on Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning, suggest that professional development may need to consider disciplinary contexts rather than assuming that UDL is experienced and enacted uniformly across teacher education. These findings should not be used to characterise disciplines as deficient; instead, they point to the potential value of discipline-responsive professional learning and further investigation of how UDL is embedded across different subject areas.

6. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The study was conducted in three colleges of education, limiting the generalisability of the findings to other institutions and educational contexts. The reliance on self-report survey data may have introduced social desirability bias and does not necessarily reflect observed instructional practice. Moreover, data on teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices and their demographic and professional characteristics were collected through the same self-report survey at a single time point, introducing the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The observed associations should therefore not be interpreted as evidence of causal relationships. The study employed EFA in the initial development of the UDL-IS. The EFA of the final 35-item scale was conducted with 156 participants, yielding a participant-to-item ratio below the commonly recommended 5:1 guideline for factor analysis (Hair et al., 2022). Although the KMO statistic, Bartlett’s test, communalities, and primary factor loadings generally supported the suitability of the analysis, the modest sample size may limit the stability and replicability of the factor solution (Fabrigar et al., 1999; Henson & Roberts, 2006). The three-factor structure should therefore be regarded as preliminary and tested further through confirmatory factor analysis with larger, independent samples, as recommended in early-stage scale development (DeVellis, 2016; Hair et al., 2022). The regression findings also require careful interpretation. The overall UDL model and two of the three factor-specific models were not statistically significant, and some demographic and professional categories included relatively small numbers of participants. In addition, the number of predictors entered into the regression models was large relative to the available sample, which may have reduced statistical power and affected the precision of some coefficient estimates (Field, 2018; Hair et al., 2022). Significant individual coefficients observed within non-significant models should therefore be interpreted cautiously and replicated in future studies. Future studies should employ larger and more diverse samples and incorporate classroom observations, curriculum analysis, and longitudinal or multi-source designs to validate the UDL-IS, reduce potential common method effects, and examine how teacher educators reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation relates to teacher preparation and subsequent classroom practice.

7. Conclusions

This study provides one of the first empirical investigations of teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation within teacher education in Ghana. The findings demonstrate that the newly developed UDL-IS offers a promising foundation for examining how UDL principles are embedded within teacher education programmes. Although further refinement of the instrument is warranted, the EFA identified three interconnected empirical dimensions—Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning; Action, Expression and Strategic Learner Support; and Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning—rather than reproducing the original CAST domains exactly. Teacher educators reported generally high levels of UDL incorporation across the three empirical dimensions. Among these, Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning received the highest rating, whereas Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning received the comparatively lowest, although it remained high overall. The regression results suggest that associations between teacher educators’ demographic and professional characteristics and perceived UDL incorporation differed across dimensions. Compared with teacher educators in Education, those in Languages reported lower levels of perceived incorporation across the overall scale and all three dimensions. Prior exposure to UDL was positively associated with overall incorporation and with Engagement, Relevance and Meaningful Learning. Reflective and Socially Responsive Learning was the only dimension for which the overall regression model reached statistical significance, with disciplinary department and subject specialisation contributing to observed differences. By examining teacher educators’ reported incorporation of UDL-aligned practices in preservice teacher preparation, this study adds new evidence to international discussions on how future teachers can be better prepared to respond to learner diversity within increasingly inclusive education systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, W.N.; Methodology, W.N.; Software, W.N.; Validation, W.N. and M.P.O.; Formal Analysis, W.N. and M.P.O.; Investigation, W.N.; Resources, W.N.; Data Curation, W.N. and I.A.; Writing—Original Draft, W.N.; Writing—Review and Editing, W.N. and M.P.O.; Visualisation, W.N.; Supervision, W.N.; Project Administration, W.N.; Funding Acquisition, W.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Western Sydney University through an Academic Development Programme.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Western Sydney University (H16458, 17 February 2025).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author because they contain information that could compromise participant confidentiality.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Almeqdad, Q. I., Alodat, A. M., Alquraan, M. F., Mohaidat, M. A., & Al-Makhzoomy, A. K. (2023). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2218191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Amegah, E. E., Amegah, S. S., & Qian, X. (2024). Teacher education reforms in Ghana: Review of past and present. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(8), 3650–3657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. CAST. (2024). Universal design for learning guidelines version 3.0. Available online: http://udlguidelines.cast.org (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  5. Chyung, S. Y., Hutchinson, D., & Shamsy, J. A. (2020). Evidence-based survey design: Ceiling effects associated with response scales. Performance Improvement, 59(6), 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., & Ludlow, L. (2016). Initial teacher education: What does it take to put equity at the center? Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Craig, S. L., Smith, S. J., & Frey, B. B. (2022). Professional development with universal design for learning: Supporting teachers as learners to increase the implementation of UDL. Professional Development in Education, 48(1), 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (7th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  13. Florian, L., & Camedda, D. (2020). Enhancing teacher education for inclusion. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2022). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage. [Google Scholar]
  15. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Hromalik, C. D., Myhill, W. N., Ohrazda, C. A., Carr, N. R., & Zumbuhl, S. A. (2024). Increasing universal design for learning knowledge and application at a community college: The universal design for learning academy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(3), 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Inclusive Development Partners. (2020). Universal design for learning (UDL) strategies for teacher trainers in Ghana: Guidance document for trainers. UNICEF. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kreitchmann, R. S., Abad, F. J., Ponsoda, V., Nieto, M. D., & Morillo, D. (2019). Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: Forced-choice vs. psychometric modeling of likert items. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  19. Lee, A., & Griffin, C. C. (2021). Exploring online learning modules for teaching universal design for learning (UDL): Preservice teachers’ lesson plan development and implementation. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(3), 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Loughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: The foundation of the professional knowledge of teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 523–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Lüke, T., & Grosche, M. (2018). What do I think about inclusive education? It depends on who is asking. Experimental evidence for a social desirability bias in attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1), 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. McKenzie, J., Karisa, A., & Kahonde, C. (2023). Implementation of universal design for learning in low- and middle-income countries: “I thought these principles could have been written by me”. Disabilities, 3(4), 666–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Ministry of Education. (2015). Inclusive education policy implementation plan. Ministry of Education, Republic of Ghana.
  24. Ministry of Education. (2016a). National teachers’ standards for Ghana: Guidelines. Transforming Teacher Education and Learning in Ghana. Ministry of Education, Republic of Ghana.
  25. Ministry of Education. (2016b). The national teacher education curriculum framework. Transforming Teacher Education and Learning in Ghana. Ministry of Education, Republic of Ghana.
  26. Moriña, A., Carballo, R., & Doménech, A. (2025). Transforming higher education: A systematic review of faculty training in UDL and its benefits. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(7), 1722–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Nketsia, W. (2018). Inclusive education policy and practice in Ghana: Air castle or realistic goal? In S. Pather, & R. Slee (Eds.), Challenges in inclusive education policy in Africa (pp. 69–86). Brill. [Google Scholar]
  28. Nketsia, W., & Opoku, M. P. (2024). Editorial: Transforming teacher education in Sub-Saharan African countries towards the achievement of sustainable development goal 4 by 2030: New opportunities, challenges, problems, and prospects. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1426730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D. (2017). Universal design for learning in pre-K to grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 25(2), 116–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  32. Pugach, M. C., Blanton, L. P., Mickelson, A. M., & Boveda, M. (2020). Curriculum theory: The missing perspective in teacher education for inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 85–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-based lessons. SAGE Open, 6(4), 21582440166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Ren, N., Lam, G. Y. H., Wang, Y., King, R. B., & Lee, V. W. Y. (2026). Integrating Universal Design for Learning in higher education: A scoping review of empirical studies. Higher Education Research & Development, 45(6), 1866–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Rusconi, L., & Squillaci, M. (2023). Effects of a universal design for learning (UDL) training course on the development teachers’ competences: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(5), 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Scott, L., Bruno, L., Gokita, T., & Thoma, C. A. (2022). Teacher candidates’ abilities to develop universal design for learning and universal design for transition lesson plans. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(4), 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Sewell, A., Kennett, A., & Pugh, V. (2022). Universal design for learning as a theory of inclusive practice for use by educational psychologists. Educational Psychology in Practice, 38(4), 364–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Smith, S. J., Rao, K., Lowrey, A., Moore, E. J., Coy, K., Marino, M. T., & Wojcik, B. W. (2019). Recommendations for a national research agenda in UDL: Outcomes from the UDL-IRN preconference on research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(3), 174–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Timuș, N., Bartlett, M. E., Bartlett, J. E., Ehrlich, S., & Babutsidze, Z. (2024). Fostering inclusive higher education through universal design for learning and inclusive pedaggy—EU and US faculty perceptions. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(2), 473–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms. ASCD. [Google Scholar]
  41. UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  42. UNESCO. (2024). Breaking barriers in higher education for and with students with disabilities. UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/breaking-barriers-higher-education-and-students-disabilities (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  43. Unluol Unal, N., Karal, M. A., & Tan, S. (2022). Developing accessible lesson plans with universal design for learning (UDL). International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(4), 1442–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Vitelli, E. M. (2015). Universal design for learning: Are we teaching it to preservice general education teachers? Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(3), 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Walton, E., & Rusznyak, L. (2020). Cumulative knowledge-building for inclusive education in initial teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 18–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Zhang, L., Carter, R. A., Jr., Greene, J. A., & Bernacki, M. L. (2024). Unraveling challenges with the implementation of universal design for learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Reading Instruction for Learners with Intellectual Developmental Disabilities and Complex Communication Needs
Previous
Beyond the Rival Paradigms Narrative in Adult Learning: A Hybridised and Harmonised Andragogical Model for the Twenty-First Century
Next