Are There Inclusive Pedagogical Perspectives? Teachers’ Perceptions and UDL Training in Early Childhood Education (Ages 0–3)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the different perspectives of teachers at an Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Center (serving ages 0–3) regarding the teaching–learning process, the Universal Design for Learning (UDL), its benefits and the training received. This approach aims to identify the persistent barriers to implementing inclusive pedagogical practices. A qualitative single-case study approach was adopted, utilizing semi-structured interviews as an instrument. The results reveal that teachers adapt to the interests and needs of the classroom by contemplating UDL and its benefits. This framework does not strike them as a novelty introduced by the country’s latest educational regulations, as they were already implementing it to attend to all students. However, they still demand and emphasize the lack of training, despite it being mandated by current legislation, which consequently creates a gap between theory and practice. The study concludes by highlighting the need for continuous and contextualized teacher training in the first cycle of ECEC. Furthermore, reflecting on teachers’ beliefs regarding early childhood learning (0–3 years), understanding UDL principles, and applying inclusive strategies are considered vital for high-quality educational practice.

1. Introduction

The importance of Early Childhood Education and Care (hereinafter, ECEC) being of high quality is irrefutable and, in order to achieve it, individual student development must be addressed, thus reducing socio-educational inequalities (Otero-Mayer et al., 2021). This is one of the analyzed aspects of the R + D + i project (Project Name, Reference Number), from which this study arises. To achieve this, and through a mapping procedure, an investigation was carried out on the processes of exclusion and inclusion in Andalusia through the utilized methodologies and designs, such as UDL. It is a pedagogical model that helps reduce or eradicate existing contextual barriers to work towards building an inclusive school (Restrepo, 2018), thereby facilitating the accessibility, participation, and learning experiences of all students. This design considers, from the beginning of curricular planning, singularities, personal differences, needs and interests (Benítez et al., 2019), embracing differences as enrichment and diluting students’ classification and labeling (Benítez-Gavira & Aguilar-Gavira, 2022). UDL considers that every student is diverse, different and unique in their way of learning (Tirado, 2023) and the way they become involved in the learning process. It plays an essential role in the first cycle of ECEC, as this stage is inherently a celebration of difference and diversity, which is why these particularities must be addressed to ensure students feel part of the teaching–learning experience as full rights-holders.

As mentioned by Alba et al. (2015), “students’ difficulties in accessing learning might not be as closely related to their own personal characteristics and abilities as to the inflexible nature of the materials and teaching methods used, which failed to respond to the wide diversity of the student body” (p. 93). UDL, with its flexible approach, aligns with this need by adjusting teaching methods to the characteristics, abilities, needs, and interest of each student, thus becoming “an essential option at the service of educators and students” (Benítez et al., 2019) for the design of enriching environments. UDL seeks to promote an equitable educational intervention that guarantees social justice, while considering uniqueness and diverse contextual realities (Batmaz-Derer & Coskun, 2021). According to Benítez et al. (2019), it is important to “clarify that UDL does not mean ‘reducing, simplifying, or lowering’ learning content for some students or seeking the ‘minimum common content’” (p. 81). Nor is it a “recipe book”, as Restrepo (2018) argues, through which the same ingredients are offered in exact measures to all students equally. UDL promotes flexibility in the introduction of information, offering multiple options for children to access and understand it (CAST, 2018).

In the first cycle of Early Childhood Education (ages 0–3), play and exploration serve as the core pillars of learning. Within the framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), childhood diversity is not conceived as a diagnostic category or an exceptional condition requiring retroactive adaptations; rather, it is understood as the individual variability and neurodevelopmental diversity inherent in all students (including differences in pacing, sensory styles, interests, and abilities). Addressing this diversity involves proactively designing flexible pedagogical environments that eliminate contextual barriers before they hinder learning.

In this regard, the articulation between play, exploration, and UDL is reflected in the following key actions:

-

Utilization of diverse and unstructured materials: This is understood as those that have not been created specifically for a concrete educational or playful purpose (Oliveira & Teixeira, 2020). This allows autonomous learning and aligns with the individual needs and interests of each child while recognizing and considering different learning styles and paces, thereby fostering creativity and divergent thinking (Rodrigo & Gómez, 2023). All of this aligns with UDL Principle II by providing multiple options for action and expression, promoting flexibility in the introduction of information, learning methods, and the way students demonstrate what they are capable of doing by drawing upon their backgrounds, capacities, and skills.

-

Multisensory stimulation: Play installations and/or play scenarios, due to their multisensory, interactive nature and openness to multiple interpretations, naturally align with UDL Principle I by providing multiple means of representation (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic), thereby creating richer learning experiences. Another example is “small worlds”, created as simple representations of the environment or everyday life situations to facilitate understanding and connect with the surroundings. Students explore, experiment, and manipulate materials, building upon their own realities and experiences. According to Gómez-Pintado et al. (2022), “children, just like artists, are in their ‘laboratory’ and, if clues are left behind, they experiment with the reality that surrounds them and use it to express themselves” (p. 1581).

-

Fostering autonomy: UDL seeks to make students the protagonists of their own learning by offering them options for self-management and the development of self-regulation. It shares and complements this vision by promoting choice and control over learning tools and strategies, where the adult creates an environment of trust. In this setting, students feel safe to explore, observe and interact, while the educator assumes a guiding and observing role, as proposed by UDL (CAST, 2018).

-

The value of free play: Villarroel et al. (2022) state that “if there is no freedom in play, there is no possibility for exploration, adventure, wonder, discovery, relationship, and creation—fundamental elements when it comes to learning” (p. 24). Play has a crucial role in the comprehensive development of students, especially in the first cycle. It allows infants and toddlers aged 0–3 to interact (with people or materials), investigate, and discover, learning through motivation, pleasure, and emotion that play awakens in them. In the words of Tonucci (2012), “children need to play with other children and without direct adult control” (p. 110). Free play enables the implementation of UDL to the extent of fostering autonomy regarding what to do and how to do it, encouraging imagination, and respecting different learning paces, interests, and multiple intelligences, as well as the possibility of building together as equals or individually, which are all linked to the students’ own motivation and interest. According to Gauvreau et al. (2019), play enables students to develop new skills while promoting active participation in their learning.

-

Creation of inclusive environments: The need to adjust educational proposals to the needs of each student. UDL, much like the Roma Project (López, 2018), is based on the principle that everyone can learn and is competent to do so, providing strategies to eliminate barriers and create learning environments accessible to all students. The importance of autonomy and motivation in learning is reflected in UDL guidelines 7.1, 7.2, and 9. These guidelines promote the creation of learning environments that foster commitment, self-management, and intrinsic motivation—crucial aspects of the first cycle of ECEC.

Research such as that conducted by Burch et al. (2021) highlights the lack of teacher training in UDL and the significant gap in educational practice, making its applicability an ongoing challenge in the educational field. Therefore, it is necessary to transform professionals’ pedagogical training from an inclusive perspective, which entails a major attitudinal commitment to transforming their practices in schools. This training need is further exacerbated by the contradictions within current educational regulations—such as the LOMLOE (Ley Orgánica 3/2020, 2020)—regarding the idiosyncrasy of UDL, as they continue to incorporate learning individualization, the principle of normalization, or curricular adaptation programs (Sánchez et al., 2024). Based on the project mentioned at the beginning of this paper, an analytical process emerges to explore and understand the reality of professionals in the first cycle of ECEC regarding UDL, their training and their perceptions towards the teaching–learning process, resulting in the following research questions:

What is their vision regarding the teaching–learning process?

What perceptions and benefits do they believe UDL provides?

What training has the teaching staff received regarding this design?

2. Materials and Methods

This is a qualitative study; specifically, it is an intrinsic case study (Stake, 1998) of an interpretive nature (Walter, 2016). It aims to explore and understand the current situation of professionals in the first cycle of ECEC at a school in the province of Cádiz regarding the subject of study, with no intention of generalizing or extrapolating the findings to other contexts (Gómez-Nuñez et al., 2020). Two distinct characteristics make this early education school unique: its governance, which falls under a public university, and its location, situated within the university campus itself. This provides an incomparable opportunity for deep learning and knowledge generation that could not be obtained in any other center. According to Soto and Escribano (2019), this allows “describing and deeply exploring the specific traits of its individuality, as well as laying the foundation to carry out classifications, undertaking organizational actions and synthesizing information—essential issues in scientific research” (p. 208).

The entire staff of Escuela infantil “La Algaida” participated in this study, specifically five teachers. Table 1 shows their training, with an average teaching experience of 15.8 years, where E5 is the educator with the most experience (25 years) and E4 has the least (10 years).

Table 1. Training and years of experience of the participants.

Code	University Degree	Years of Teaching Experience in ECEC	Years in This School
E1	Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood Education, Psychopedagogist.	16 years	16 years
E2	Advanced Technician in Early Childhood Education, Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood Education, and Bachelor’s Degree in Psychopedagogics.	13 years	13 years
E3	Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood Education, Psychopedagogist.	15 years	15 years
E4	Bachelor’s Degree in Education, Psychopedagogist, and Master’s Degree in Bilingual Teaching.	10 years	2 and a half years
E5	Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood Education, Psychopedagogist.	25 years	24 years

The instrument used for data collection was a semi-structured interview. Although the full interview addresses the phenomenon holistically, for the development of this article we focus on five key questions that answer the research questions posed and are structured around three core dimensions: the conception of the teaching–learning process, perceptions regarding UDL, and the training received. This instrument was previously validated by three experts in inclusive education to ensure the quality of the questions in relation to the research objective. To establish the suitability of these experts, the following criteria were considered: their training in inclusive education, scientific production, and practical experience in this area.

As a fundamental principle of all research, prior informed consent was obtained from all participants. Once the individual interviews were transcribed and returned to the participants for checking and approval, content analysis was performed by establishing thematic categories identified by specific codes. To describe and define these categories, a discussion group was formed among the researchers, where decisions were made through argumentation until a consensus was reached, configuring the categories and their codes (Table 2).

Table 2. Analyzed categories.

Dimension	Category	Code	Section Title in Results
Teaching–learning process	Perception	EA_P	The origin or the essence
UDL	Perception	DUA_P	What’s new?
	UDL benefits	DUA_B	What does it provide?
Training	UDL training	F_DUA	And regarding what’s new, when are we trained?
	UDL qualification	F_C_DUA
	Suitability	F_A

Thereafter, the data were coded into the established categories using ATLAS.ti 22 software. The information within each category was then organized and grouped for presentation as findings—under the headings listed in Table 2—by identifying key trends and patterns to answer the main research questions guiding this study.

3. Results

Below, we present the findings from the teachers’ discourse around the three dimensions established in this research. In these results, the professional consolidation of the teaching team proves to be a key factor; their experience and professional maturity demonstrate a school culture based on collaborative work and a strength-based perspective on childhood, aspects closely aligned with inclusive education.

The first dimension presented alludes to the perception of the teachers at the school under study regarding the teaching–learning process.

3.1. The Origin or the Essence

The vision of the interviewees regarding the educational process underpins their practices, offering students freedom, respect and participation from the very beginning of the pedagogical proposal, while recognizing the importance of accessible education for all students. The way materials are presented constitutes a non-directive approach that makes the personalized learning experience emerge in a constructive way, while attending to individual paces, interests and needs.

We are mere observers and companions. Meaning that if anyone needs anything, we are there, if there’s a conflict, we are there; but they are totally free, and they are the ones who move around the classroom, who take materials and use them in one way or another, because we understand that learning must happen in an autonomous and free manner, where the teacher figure is just a guide or a companion.

E5

With our methodology, the child is the protagonist of their own learning, the one who constructs it. It is true that the teacher accompanies them and prepares learning situations; they prepare an environment where the child feels comfortable and discovers those learning experiences that, in some way, we anticipate might emerge, and many times, others emerge as well. Our methodology, the play-based proposals, and the respect towards the student mean that if they want to participate, they do. If they don’t want to participate, they don’t, or if they want to participate in another way, we also give them the opportunity to do so.

E1

In their classroom practice, to grant students this active role and foster the development of their autonomy and freedom in learning, the teachers employ unstructured materials and, above all, respect individual learning paces through different open-ended, playful, and interest-based proposals. The way they utilize and present these materials does not predetermine the nature of play.

We always introduce materials that don’t have a single purpose, but rather materials that let the children use them in the way they see, based on their own previous connections and associations. It is wonderful because they might discover the conventional use of the material, but perhaps that correct use is just one among a hundred other uses that are also valid. And that’s where we always want to get where each one understands, where each one plays, and where each one uses the materials in a free and totally autonomous manner.

E5

The way we work is basically through play-based proposals: we present them in an aesthetic and motivating way for the children, using materials that are typically unstructured, everyday objects, always maintaining an attractive aesthetic for them. Through these materials, children achieve their learning goals.

E1

To close this first category, which offers insight into the origin of the teachers’ own practices, the fragments presented below summarize what has been previously discussed, conveying the view that, during early childhood, children are capable agents.

As long as the essence remains that children are capable of learning and do not come to school as empty vessels, we will be walking in the same direction […] In our conception of education and how our children should learn, it is true that it is more closely aligned with the concept of learning provided by the LOMLOE.

E5

They are capable, which is what we want: for people to know that children from four months to three years old who attend school are capable beings.

E1

They are capable, and that is what we want: for everyone to realize that children aged 0 to 3, from four months up to three years old passing through our school, are capable individuals.

E1

The second dimension presented centers on UDL, specifically focusing on how teachers understand it and the potential benefits it offers.

3.2. What’s New?

All the educators demonstrate a perception of UDL that aligns with the pedagogical principles derived from the previous category. They conceive UDL as an inclusive and student-centered approach where all students have access to education—one that respects diversity and seeks to adjust teaching, activities, and content so that they are accessible to all levels and capacities, as well as different paces and individual needs. Within this framework, each student can explore and experiment, regardless of their characteristics or limitations, thereby fostering full inclusion in the learning process without excluding anyone. Furthermore, driven by their own beliefs, they understand it as a global approach that covers multiple aspects of education and validates the practices they already implemented, rather than a radical change imposed by regulations.

Universalizing teaching for that everyone has access, regardless of their limitations. The thing is, we were already doing that; I already believe in a universal approach to teaching where everyone has access and where each child can explore and experiment within their own possibilities. Of course, always ensuring that everyone is included and respecting everyone’s paces, based on which I will gradually introduce new challenges.

E3

For me, what changes is the name, because that’s what I’ve been doing all these years, or at least, what I’ve tried to do […] It’s just that, the nomenclature, because I’ve always tried to include all children, taking all their needs and paces into consideration.

E2

I see it as something so global, so global. I don’t know, I think it encompasses everything. No, it isn’t something isolated.

E4

It is significant how, by focusing on the child as a capable, proactive, and active agent, teaching practices are orchestrated based on respect, the possibility of growth, and opportunities for each individual to develop, thereby ensuring education for everyone. It is something that, as demonstrated in the previous category, accompanies the teaching staff at this educational center.

It’s like an universal access where children are the protagonists of their own learning, where their paces are respected and everyone has access regardless of their characteristics, at least, that’s how we understand it […] I believe it has not caught us off guard the conception of the child as fully active agent in their learning, respecting their pace, and understanding teaching as universal, meaning it is for everyone and where everyone has access regardless of their traits.

E3

They go a step further by affirming that the UDL approach advocates for student agency, fostering inclusive education that should have been implemented long ago. This represents a necessary paradigm shift to banish this rigid vision where everyone has to do the same thing at the same time, as a practice of equality and homogeneity to which the educational system has become accustomed.

Finally, education is being seen from a different perspective, the very one from which we’ve always viewed it, where children are the protagonists of their own learning and where the teacher is merely a facilitator of an environment for children to learn on their own.

E1

Following their contributions, there is a clear coherence and alignment between the theoretical principles of UDL and the daily practical implementation of the proposals developed by this ECEC school, particularly when teachers express that the same activity can be implemented with different levels of challenge to address classroom diversity, as evidence of their practices, articulated across various levels and grounded in their beliefs about education.

We view universal design somewhat as our way of understanding education today, as a concept of education or educational philosophy.

E5

If within the same activity, children with different developmental or motor skills participate, I include different levels of challenge within that activity. Why? So it is accessible to every child, ensuring none of them are excluded or given challenges that are too complicated.

E2

Finally, testimonies are provided that focus on some classroom practices developed through sensory and play-based approaches, granting freedom of action and expression while building upon children’s prior knowledge, aspects that connect directly with UDL principles.

Basically, it revolves around the sensory aspect. Then, through play, because in the end, it is a play-based proposal and depending on their prior knowledge and experiences within their families, other centers, or any other learning environment, they build new knowledge, assimilating and accommodating their prior understandings with what is being offered to them.

E1

It can also be appreciated through their voices describing their classroom practices that these proposals are open-ended and are adjusted to the group, taking into consideration their current state and characteristics across various areas. As these proposals are neither guided nor structured, they are best understood as provocations.

Practically every proposal we implement at school, any of them, I believe respects or applies it, as we never guide activities. We always assess how the group is doing first and then we evaluate it. We evaluate their prior knowledge, if that’s what we want to call it. We look at their needs and skills to find out what type of proposal we could offer.

E3

3.3. What Does It Provide?

Once again, and in line with the arguments presented in the previous categories, the teachers’ statements reveal that their conceptions of childhood, and reflects their beliefs, and diversity are closely aligned with universality and offer access to a multitude of possibilities for the development of each child, thereby recognizing the potential benefits of UDL. They show how providing multiple means of representation (Principle I) allows for adjustments right from the design stage to eliminate specific barriers. Furthermore, their professional trajectory means they do not view UDL as a drastic change, but rather as the systematization of their own convictions regarding active methodologies and inclusion over the years. This framework is grounded in students’ intrinsic interest, strengths, and capacities for their own learning, moving beyond a purely welfare-oriented view of this educational stage.

It hasn’t caught us off guard regarding the conception of the child as a fully active participant in their own learning, respecting their own pace, and ensuring that teaching is universal for everyone, where all children have access, regardless of their characteristics […] So, we are going to ensure that everyone has access. I’m talking about that or about the resources. If they need digital resources that help them because they can’t hear well, then we will make greater use of audio equipment to facilitate their learning.

E3

It’s about giving the child more visibility, based on the child, from the inside out and not the other way around. I believe that is the principal idea that it brings, which helps to dignify the first cycle.

E1

It is more beneficial as it reaches each and every child.

E2

The third and final dimension of this results paper focuses on teacher training in relation to UDL.

3.4. And Regarding What’s New, When Are We Trained?

The teachers state that the training they have received regarding UDL is non-existent, while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of continuous training. Through their testimonies, they also convey their concerns and interest in facing the new challenges implicit in current regulations—educational laws that demand teaching competencies not covered in administrative training plans, thereby shifting the responsibility onto the educators themselves. Consequently, teachers conduct their own searches to fill the training gap left by the administration. Through daily practice and theoretical inquiry, these educators generate pedagogical knowledge that allows them to respond to their specific realities and needs. This reflects a teacher-researcher role in relation to UDL, taking charge of their professional development in a self-directed manner, driven by a reflective profile deeply committed to addressing student diversity. Far from resigning themselves to the status quo, the teachers assert their professional responsibility, wherein inquiry, curiosity, and ongoing professional development become an implicit duty of their teaching practice.

Until now, I hadn’t received any training, […] regarding Universal Design for Learning.

E4

We haven’t received training per se; Whatever we might know about it is because each of us has taken an interest in reading and learning about it.

E3

A new way of working is implemented, yet staff aren’t trained to carry it out, which makes no sense at all. But also, teachers must possess a certain curiosity at least, and a desire to seek training and demand it in some way.

E1

4. Discussion and Conclusions

By revisiting the research questions that underpin this study (What is the teachers’ vision of the teaching–learning process? What perceptions and benefits do they consider UDL to provide? What training has the teaching staff received regarding this framework?), we can identify several significant findings that contribute to enriching the debate on teacher education and inclusive practices at this educational level. Teachers are committed to the implementation of inclusive practices and recognize the value of UDL as a pedagogical approach that fosters learning. Their perception of the teaching–learning process is rooted in many principles of the New School movement and the Reggio Emilia approach, viewing childhood through a lens of capability (López, 2018). Furthermore, they display a deep understanding of UDL principles, aligning their practices with its theoretical foundations. They view children as active participants in their own learning. Within this framework, freedom and autonomy are grounded in trust, security, respect, and diversity, steering towards an inclusive school as Restrepo (2018) advocates. Consequently, the implementation of UDL is perceived as a natural evolution of their existing pedagogical practices rather than an external imposition. This aligns with Gauvreau et al. (2019), who highlights the natural alignment between Early Childhood Education philosophies and UDL. Based on this perception, the didactic and educational proposals of this ECEC center are characterized by active methodologies closely aligned with UDL’s principles and guidelines (Márquez & García, 2022). These materialize through the use of diverse materials (Oliveira & Teixeira, 2020; Rodrigo & Gómez, 2023), multisensory stimulation (Gómez-Pintado et al., 2022), the creation of inclusive learning environments (López, 2018), and free play (Villarroel et al., 2022). Despite the fact that free play should be regarded as a key pedagogical strategy at this educational level, it is not always framed as such in teaching practice (Giner-Gomis et al., 2024). Ultimately, a clear coherence is evidenced between the teachers’ beliefs regarding early childhood learning (0–3 years) and the application of inclusive strategies. They acknowledge that each process is distinct and that students participate in different ways when facing the same situation, which they address by offering a wide range of proposals that allow for a great variety of possibilities for participation, interaction, expression, and production within a single scenario (Muntaner-Guasp et al., 2022).

As previously established, teachers emphasize the active role of students in the learning process, enabling them to explore and construct their own knowledge. Within this approach, play is positioned as a fundamental tool for children’s holistic development, facilitating the construction of knowledge and skills in a meaningful way. Drawing on their professional maturity and experience, the teachers have developed a variety of active learning strategies. These take the form of flexible, open-ended play activities that address students’ diverse needs and interests, thereby removing environmental barriers and respecting individual learning styles (Tirado, 2023). This synthesis generates new theoretical perspectives emanating from deeply rooted school practices, which transition into innovative proposals applied in the first cycle of ECEC. Furthermore, the present study highlights the potential of active methodologies to foster the implementation of UDL. It also demonstrates the importance of teachers’ perceptions regarding the teaching–learning process, childhood, and their own training in scaffolding educational practices that promote inclusion, social justice, and quality, while considering uniqueness and diverse contextual realities (Batmaz-Derer & Coskun, 2021). Contemplating and applying inclusion within classrooms ensures that it extends to broader citizenship and different spheres of society (Téllez-Ruíz et al., 2024).

The findings confirm the need for continuous teacher training tailored to the specific educational cycle to which they belong (Moral & Moreno, 2021). Specifically regarding UDL, addressing training needs is essential to comply with legal mandates to provide an inclusive education, as noted by González-Ramírez et al. (2025). The limited visibility of the first cycle of ECEC is evidenced both in the scant scientific literature available and in the participants’ discourse, which may also contribute to the lack of training opportunities provided to teachers in this stage. Despite the successful practices implemented, teachers demand more specific and updated training in the field of UDL to support them in the implementation of inclusive strategies and to respond to the challenges of classroom diversity. Their insights reveal a challenging environment that feels overlooked in terms of visibility, attention, and resources. Although they are aware of the progress made in recognizing the first cycle as an integral part of the education system, they state that inequalities persist regarding the support and attention provided to teachers.

Regarding future lines of research, the findings of this study highlight the need to further investigate the implementation of UDL within the context of Early Childhood Education, specifically its first cycle, by exploring the factors that facilitate or hinder its practical application. Future studies should examine the similarities and discrepancies among university-run, public, and semi-private early childhood centers within the Andalusian context and subsequently expand this analysis across Spain. Furthermore, it is necessary to analyze whether other first-cycle early childhood centers report similar inequalities regarding the support and attention provided to their teaching staff. Additionally, it is crucial to design programs of initial and continuous training tailored to the specific needs of first-cycle educational teams, providing them with the necessary tools and knowledge to implement UDL effectively. Finally, we emphasize the importance of promoting educational policies that fully recognize the significance of the first cycle of ECEC and guarantee equity in the distribution of resources and training opportunities.