A Mixed Methods Analysis of General Education Candidates’ Knowledge, Perceptions, and Application of Universal Design for Learning

Abstract

Thirty general education candidates from elementary education, middle/secondary education, and arts education in multiple sections of one course engaged in a series of discussion posts and lesson plans related to creating inclusive general education lessons. Using candidate posts, rubric scores, feedback on lesson plans, and course evaluation ratings, a mixed methods approach was used to understand candidate knowledge, perceptions, and applications of Universal Design for Learning. The results from our research have important implications for policy, practice, and research. Policy makers must be aware of the lack of UDL in general education programs and IHEs need to do more than the cursory coverage of these principles. Additional research is needed for the implementation of lessons designed using UDL by general education candidates.

1. Introduction

Creating instructional environments where all the students can be successful is one of the foundations of education. Such educational environments are often referred to as inclusive settings or classrooms. The term inclusion in education commonly refers to students with disabilities receiving access to the general curriculum in the same settings as their peers without disabilities to the maximum extent possible [1]. The reasons for the involvement of all the students in the general education classroom are evident; for example, when engaging in instruction together, students with and without disabilities have shown increased positive academic and social outcomes [2]. Additionally, with the diverse student populations and learning needs in classrooms today [3], the term inclusion is beginning to go beyond referring only to students with disabilities and is becoming increasingly synonymous with providing learning environments that consider the unique needs of all learners. In 2021, there were a little more than 195,000 students meeting the eligibility requirements for special education services in North Carolina (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], [4]) with 69% of those students in the general education classroom 80% or more of each day and 12% in the general education classroom 40% or less of the day [4]). As a result, general education teachers have an increased responsibility to maximize learning opportunities for all students.

1.1. General Education Teacher Preparation

With this responsibility also comes the demand for these teachers to be experts in areas for which they have traditionally received limited to no preparation [5] (e.g., inclusive settings, and co-teaching).

General Education Teacher Self-Efficacy

While many teachers understand the benefit of meeting the academic needs of all their students, research suggests that many general education teachers feel inadequately prepared to effectively address students’ diverse learning needs [6]. Research has shown that teachers’ self-efficacy, or their individual beliefs about their capabilities to demonstrate certain skills, directly affects their behavior and actions [7]. Additionally, there is empirical evidence to support that teachers with high self-efficacy often design and deliver instruction that is better aligned to meet the needs of their students [8] and that teacher self-efficacy can be considered one of the most successful predictors of the teachers’ implementation of inclusive practices [9].

1.2. Universal Design for Learning

One suggested way to increase teachers’ self-efficacy is to prepare them during their preservice education programs to apply the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Planning with UDL in mind allows teachers to proactively embrace the diversity in their classrooms and effectively plan instruction that allows all the students to successfully achieve their learning goals [10].

The goal of UDL is vital: providing accessible, equitable, and inclusive access to general education curriculum for all students. The proactive and intentional application of this framework during instructional design has the potential to increase positive outcomes for both teachers and students by intentionally removing unnecessary barriers to learning [10]. Viewed as a framework that can increase inclusive opportunities while simultaneously decreasing the number of accommodations and modifications students with disabilities may need, the UDL framework has demonstrated positive academic outcomes in both special and inclusive general education classrooms for students with disabilities [11,12,13,14,15].

1.2.1. Limited Research on UDL and General Education Preservice Teachers

However, research has shown that UDL is rarely used in general education settings [16,17]. One explanation could be that there is very little research studying UDL and its application with preservice general education teachers. In 2014, Israel and colleagues [18] presented recommendations for teacher preparation and professional development which suggested candidates must have a basic understanding of the UDL framework as a prerequisite to implementing accessible instruction for all students. In this paper, the authors also provide suggestions for activities related to designing and evaluating program-based content such as curriculum, instruction, student progress, the use of technology, and assessment. In alignment with these recommendations, Scott et al. (2017) [19] distributed a 23-question survey to 48 special education personnel preparation programs across the United States. The results of this survey indicate that all the respondents included some form of preparation in at least one of the principles of UDL in their coursework. As noted by the authors, the data reflect a wide range of variability in the instruction and comprehension of the basic components of the UDL framework and a lack of opportunities for students to apply skills within natural education environments. It is also important to note that this study was conducted in reference to special education preparation programs, excluding data from general education programs.

Conversely, Vitelli [6] administered an online survey to general education faculty members. According to the results of the survey, many respondents reported being aware of UDL (60.34%), while only 24.14% reported teaching it, indicating that the instruction of the framework has yet to be considered a standard topic to be taught within and across preservice general education teacher preparation programs.

Expanding the work of Spooner et al. (2007) [20], Courey et al. (2012) [21] and Owiney et al. (2019) [22] surveyed 14 elementary or secondary preservice teachers on their perceptions of including students with disabilities in their future classrooms prior to and after providing instruction in UDL. Additionally, researchers analyzed preservice teachers’ ability to effectively apply the principles of UDL during lesson plan design. Using a mixed methods design, the results indicated that, between baseline and post intervention, preservice teachers increased their knowledge of how to effectively plan instruction using the principles of UDL; however, preservice teachers demonstrated little growth between the post intervention and the end of the semester lesson plans. These results suggest that while preservice teachers can acquire the knowledge needed to construct lesson plans that are inclusive of the principles of UDL, more explicit modeling and opportunities to receive feedback are needed to ensure continuous improvement. Lastly, Unluol Unal et al. (2022) [23] examined the effectiveness of an individually paced online UDL training on general education teacher candidates’ daily lesson plan writing skills. Lesson plans from 97 Turkish elementary education preservice teachers were examined, resulting in a statistically significant difference between the participants’ scores on their lesson plans after receiving instruction. Consistent with previous research, these findings suggest that training on UDL was successful in increasing the candidates’ lesson plan writing skills and their ability to effectively plan instruction for all students.

While these few studies provide examples of the positive outcomes preservice general education teachers can experience upon receiving explicit instruction in UDL, the scarcity of research regarding preservice candidates’ knowledge and use of UDL and their perceptions or beliefs about UDL indicates a need to further explore these areas. Furthermore, data supporting the limited inclusive opportunities for students with disabilities suggests that there is still substantial work that needs to be performed to identify effective strategies in teacher education programs to increase preservice candidates’ self-efficacy in meeting the diverse learning needs of all the students in their classrooms. Therefore, this mixed methods study was conducted to respond to this call and expand the research parameters to include candidates in educational programs not represented in the literature (i.e., arts education) while also measuring candidate perceptions and beliefs about UDL along with their knowledge and application of UDL.

1.2.2. Research Questions

• What knowledge do general education teacher candidates have about using UDL principles to meet the diverse learning needs of students?
• What are the perceptions of general education teacher candidates regarding the use of UDL within planning to address barriers to instruction for all learners?
• To what degree can general education teacher candidates apply practical instructional and learning strategies that make instruction effective for students with diverse learning needs?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

We used a convergent mixed methods design for this research study with a combination of quantitative and qualitative research questions and corresponding data sources [24]. Using both quantitative and qualitative data allowed for a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the evolving perceptions, knowledge, and skills of general education preservice candidates who had little prior experience applying the principles of UDL to lesson plans. Specifically, the quantitative data sources (i.e., instructor feedback and course evaluations) provided a concise evaluation of candidates’ knowledge and the course, while the qualitative data source (i.e., discussion forum posts) provided more elaborated detail about the candidates’ experiences over time [20]. Discussion posts throughout the semester as well as instructor feedback on candidate instructional planning documents were captured simultaneously. A course evaluation was collected at the conclusion of the semester. While each source was analyzed separately, as a collective, the data were combined to create a more comprehensive image of candidate experiences.

2.2. Researcher Positionalities

The instructor of record and co-researcher on this project was a clinical assistant professor at the university. In addition to 16 years of educational experience teaching in and supporting diverse classrooms, the instructor had taught this course four times prior to the semesters in which research was conducted. As the instructor of record, she had prior knowledge of and/or initially assessed candidate products including the discussion posts, instructional planning documents, and course evaluation ratings and statements. To avoid any perception of the influence of candidate responses on candidate course outcomes, the instructor emailed candidates to ask for consent to participate in the study after grades had been posted. The first author served as the consensus coder for all the qualitative data and summarized the quantitative data. The second author had 28 years of experience teaching (9 in classrooms and 19 in higher education) and had no prior engagement with the participants. The second author served as the consensus coder for all the qualitative data. The third author had 25 years of experience teaching (12 in classrooms and 10 in higher education) and had no prior engagement with the participants. The third author served as the qualitative expert and supported the application of the codes to create categories and themes within the qualitative data.

All three authors are white female researchers who have experience in quantitative and qualitative research, undergraduate teaching, and/or expertise in UDL. To reduce the potential impact of the researcher’s personal perspectives, bias, and any misinterpretation of the participants’ voices, the research team applied different trustworthiness methods such as analytic memoing, engaging in ongoing conversations about the interpretation of data, and implementing a systematic process for coding and recoding data.

2.3. Setting and Participants

The university within this study was a state-supported public university located in the southeast of the United States. Enrollment was approximately 30,000 students. In the 2022–23 academic year, there were 1649 students enrolled in the College of Education (COED). Of those students, 2% of the students were Asian, 20% were Black, 10% were Hispanic, and 62% were White. The COED offers comprehensive teacher preparation programs in elementary education, middle and secondary education, and arts education. The teacher education programs are designed to intentionally develop highly competent educators by placing an emphasis on focused practices using a practice-based teacher education model, integrating research into instructional decision making, and attending to the diverse experiences and perspectives of learners and educators. The participants were preservice teacher education candidates enrolled in one education course required for most general education programs including elementary education, middle and secondary education, and arts education titled Modifying Instruction for Diverse Learners. This course was intended to assist teacher education candidates in developing strategies for adapting standard instruction to meet the learning needs of all the students in classrooms K-12 including students at risk of school failure, individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, gifted learners, and students with disabilities.

A total of 30 candidates across two sections (n = 23 in the summer 2022 section and n = 7 in the fall 2022 section) in an undergraduate education course participated in the study. The candidates were assigned a number with either a fall (F) or summer (S) code. Most candidates (n = 25) were juniors, with 10 seniors, and one sophomore. The candidates were either elementary education majors (n = 26), arts education majors (n = 8), or secondary education majors (n = 2). Additional demographic information was not collected as a part of IRB approval.

2.4. Data Sources

A series of data sources were used to answer the three research questions. The data sources are described and identified as providing either quantitative data, qualitative data, or both (see

Table 1. Data sources.

Data Sources	Description	Type of Data	Research Question
Course evaluation	Electronic questionnaires requiring a written answer or selected response to a series of questions to evaluate the instruction of a given course. These evaluations are a means to produce useful as well as timely feedback, which instructors and their departments can use to improve the quality of instruction. Responses to two forced-choice questions were included in the quantitative data set.	Quantitative	Question 2
Instructional planning document	Instructional plans are used to assess the candidates’ application of course concepts and objectives as they relate to constructing learning opportunities designed to meet the needs of diverse learners. Instructional plans require the candidates to indicate a selected content standard, a learning goal that allows for flexible learning pathways for the candidates to demonstrate mastery of the learning goal, documentation of evidence-based strategies used throughout the delivery of instruction, the candidates’ intentional application of the principles of UDL, and the reduction or removal of learning barriers for specific target students to ensure access and inclusive opportunities for students with diverse learning needs.	Quantitative	Question 1 Question 3
Discussion posts	Discussion posts provided a safe space for the candidates to expand upon, clarify, question, and critically examine course content as it applies to instructional planning and meeting the diverse needs of all students.	Qualitative	Question 2 Question 3

).

2.5. Procedures

General education candidates in elementary education, middle/secondary education, and arts education programs at our university are required to take one course designed to support the needs of diverse learners within instruction. Two sections of this course served as the context for the current study. While there were four course objectives, one specific objective focused specifically on UDL: demonstrate and apply the use of the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to the components of a curriculum to support the diverse learning needs of students. The participants completed a series of discussion posts (n = 10 in summer; n = 14 in fall) and instructional planning documents and revisions (n = 5 in summer; n = 5 in fall) throughout the semester as part of the course. Discussion posts were used to engage the candidates in content-related discourse while also promoting opportunities for resource sharing. For every post, the candidates could select from a variety of topics (e.g., content versus achievement standards, the use of graphic organizers, or grading) with related readings, videos, or postings to write a response to expand upon, clarify, question, and/or critically examine course content as it applies to instructional planning and meeting the diverse needs of all students and were required to respond to a peer as part of the assignment. Posts and instructional planning documents were collected as assignments in Canvas, the learning management system for the university.

Instructional planning documents were used to assess the candidates’ application of course concepts and objectives as they relate to modifying instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners. The candidates worked in groups of four, planning documents and revising the planning information as new information and scenarios with additional students with diverse needs were provided. They completed the final instructional planning document individually. For the purposes of this study, the researchers examined instructional feedback that was provided by the instructor of record on all the completed planning documents. A frequency count of corrective statements was completed by the evaluation area (i.e., content standard, learning goal, strategies, the reduction or removal of barriers, and benefits to all students), and data were analyzed for any noticeable patterns.

Additionally, at the end of the course, the candidates had the opportunity to complete an online course evaluation. Two Likert-style questions with a range of Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree were included as follows: (a) overall, I learned a lot in this course, and (b) this course challenged me to think about the subject matter. Course evaluation data were aggregated and released to the professors after grades were posted for the candidates.

After the semester ended and grades were submitted, all the candidates in the summer and fall 2022 sections of the course were contacted to ask for consent to use their data. IRB approval for the study was secured prior to requesting consent. The researchers wanted to ensure the candidates understood that their permission to use the data was not linked to grades in the course, but instead, would be used to evaluate the evolution of their knowledge, skills, and the use of UDL concepts throughout the course. The data from each source were added to a secure Google Drive folder that was accessible only to the three researchers.

2.6. Data Analysis

As numerical and narrative data were collected, both quantitative and qualitative analyses were applied. As the study used both descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of the collected data, a mixed methods approach was utilized with the qualitative data informing the collection of supporting quantitative data.

2.6.1. Quantitative Analysis

To answer research questions 1–3, numeric data from the course evaluations and instructional planning feedback were aggregated and reported as descriptive statistics in either frequency, percentages, or both.

2.6.2. Qualitative Analysis

To answer research question 2, we applied thematic analysis to the discussion posts, which served as the primary qualitative data source [21]. Multiple readings of the data allowed all the research members to become familiar with the data and to ensure that the finalized themes best represented the voices of the participants. To begin the coding process, the first two authors generated a preliminary list of 31 inductive and deductive codes based on their initial reading of the data and research literature on UDL. The inductive coding process utilized five of the steps within the process outlined by [NAEEM] using data familiarization, identifying keywords, creating codes, developing themes, and conceptualizing social interpretations of the data. The keywords, codes, and coding rules were organized into a codebook using Google Sheets [25]. The codebook was then applied to the discussion posts. The unit of analysis was at the sentence or paragraph level. As new codes emerged during this initial coding process, the codebook was further refined. Preliminary categories and themes were also identified and discussed.

The first two authors analyzed all the discussion posts using a constant comparison method. This method allowed us to refine and collapse information into codes, then categories, and finally themes. We independently coded a subset of the discussion posts one at a time and engaged in negotiated discussions to resolve coding discrepancies after each round of coding [26]. New codes were added to the codebook, when necessary, as additional data were coded (e.g., the assessment code was established because it was a topic that multiple candidates addressed in later discussion posts). This process resulted in a refined codebook after 9 versions.

After the qualitative data had been initially coded, the third author uploaded all the coded files to NVivo to support the data reduction process. The first two authors subsumed codes based on similar characteristics into mutually exclusive categories and subcategories. These were further analyzed and subsumed into three major themes. All the raw data subsumed into the categories and themes were checked in NVivo to ensure they matched the definitions. Any discrepancies were resolved. Additionally, the third author conducted a targeted text search in NVivo of key terms (e.g., “my future classroom”) to check coding accuracy for emergent categories later in the coding process. The first two authors came to 100% agreement regarding the data subsumed into the finalized themes.

Table 2. Themes, categories, and codes.

	Name	Definition
Theme 1	Instructional design	Candidate discussion or the application of the intentional use of UDL to develop, implement, or assess students within the context of a specific strategy, lesson, or assessment tool. The practice of systematically and intentionally developing, implementing, and assessing the use of instructional practices, materials, and student outcomes.
Category 1.1	UDL	Candidate discussion or the application of the specifics within UDL (framework) or their description of an example of the content of UDL in practice. UDL is a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on evidence-based practices. The framework includes guidelines that are used to apply UDL across levels and content areas to ensure all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities. (CAST website.)
Code 1.1a	Engagement	The candidate describes plans for students to be active participants in their learning. The candidates described examples of engagement such as providing options, personalizing tasks and activities, using a variety of grouping options, and flexible seating.
Code 1.1b	Safe learning environment	The candidate describes plans for students to feel comfortable and be supported within the classroom. This included comments related to developing a positive rapport with students, creating a safe place for social-emotional and academic growth, and minimizing perceived stressors and distractions.
Code 1.1c	Accessibilities (barriers to learning)	The candidate plans to create accessible activities and classrooms and eliminate any barriers to learning for students.
Category 1.2	Planning	Candidate’s discussion of overall planning with reference to the use of high-leverage practices and evidence-based practices within instruction.
Code 1.2a	Strategies and tools	The candidate articulates specific strategies (e.g., turn and talk and cooperative learning groups) or tools (e.g., graphic organizers) within plans for instruction.
Theme 2	Beliefs and dispositions	Candidate’s discussion of what they believe about learners or their expectations or practices regarding supporting diverse learners.
Category 2.1	Value diversity	Candidate’s discussion of the role of UDL in responding to diversity (or the needs of diverse learners) or the application of UDL to support the needs of diverse learners.
Category 2.2	Inclusive education	Candidate’s discussion of the relationship between UDL and inclusion to increase opportunities or reduce barriers to accessing the general education curriculum within the general education classroom and be held to the same high expectations as their peers without disabilities.
Theme 3	Candidate experience	Candidate’s discussion of their takeaways from the course content and how they can be applied to future practice as well as the recognition of what they did or did not understand or observe in practice.
Category 3.1	Resources for future use	Candidate’s collection of resources for future use.
Category 3.2	Better prepared to be a teacher	Candidate’s expression of how they feel better prepared to be a teacher for all learners.
Category 3.3	Recognition of UDL/lack of UDL	Candidate’s discussion of what they did or did not have related to UDL in previous coursework or field experiences.

includes the final themes, with the corresponding categories, codes, and definitions. Themes, categories, and codes are further described in the context of the research questions in the Results Section.

2.7. Trustworthiness

To establish the trustworthiness of the data, we used multiple strategies [27]. For credibility, we were transparent about our positionalities and discussed our biases to ensure they did not interfere with the data analysis. For dependability, we included examples of our codes in the manuscript which were identified through consensus by the first two authors, and documented detailed method memos which established an audit trail [28]. To promote the transferability and dependability of the findings, we included multiple quotes from the participants as evidence to illustrate each category and theme.

2.8. Delimitation

One delimitation of the study was the open nature of the candidates being able to select the resources they engaged with for the discussion posts. Not every candidate engaged with the same resource for the same discussion post. Providing choice for resources within assignments is best practice for adult learners [29] and models the UDL checkpoint of Optimizing individual choice and autonomy under the guideline of Recruiting Interest within the principle of engagement. However, allowing candidate choice may not be the best practice for a research study. Given the context of the study, it was a necessary decision for the integrity of the course to provide options for candidate engagement.

3. Results

As a result of our mixed methods analyses, our quantitative analysis highlighted the candidates’ perception of their knowledge and application of UDL, while qualitative analyses yielded three emerging themes (i.e., Instructional Design, Planning, and Beliefs and Dispositions) related to the candidates’ knowledge, perception, and application of UDL.

3.1. Research Question 1: What Knowledge Do General Education Teacher Candidates Have Regarding UDL Principles to Meet the Diverse Learning Needs of Students?

We used both the quantitative and qualitative data to determine the results for research question 1. For the quantitative data, we used the candidates’ reports of knowledge as measured by their responses in an anonymous end-of-course evaluation. The candidate responses indicated that most candidates (99.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that they learned a lot during the course and felt as though the course challenged them to intentionally consider the subject matter (see

Table 3. Candidate report of knowledge.

Course Evaluation	Strongly Agree	Agree
Overall, I learned a lot in this course.	n = 21 (80.7%)	n = 5 (19.2%)
This course challenged me to think about the subject matter.	n = 22 (84.6%)	n = 4 (15.3%)

Note: in summer, 21 of the 29 enrolled candidates participated in the course evaluation; In fall, 5 of the 7 enrolled candidates participated.

).

Additionally, to demonstrate their knowledge, the candidates were asked to identify barriers and offer potential solutions that could benefit all students in their instructional planning document. After constructing a lesson plan with the principles of UDL in mind, the students were asked to consider if there were any potential barriers to access or participation for five case study scenario students who all present varying diverse learning needs. According to the instructor’s feedback, overall, the students received 76 statements of positive feedback and 41 statements of corrective feedback. The high number of positive feedback statements suggests that overall, the students were able to identify potential barriers to access and meaningful involvement in general education settings for students with diverse learning needs with one student commenting,

This course has helped me become better at understanding and addressing student needs and ways in which we can help the student achieve success while keeping things the same. Learning about how to break down potential barriers for the student and how by doing that helps not only the student with the barrier, but also the whole classroom.

(F2, DF14).

While it is important that candidates can recognize UDL in practice, it is equally important that they are able to identify the need for accessible learning opportunities. Another candidate explained,

During my clinicals, I noticed pencils, blank sheets of paper, and crayons located in places far away from students’ desks. If a student with a mobility impairment needed to get materials, they would be unable to do so. An easy fix for this would be to place multiple material stations around the room or to place materials in the middle of a group of desks so that students can easily reach them.

(S20, DF4).

Finally, after identifying potential barriers for students identified in the case study scenarios and suggesting appropriate instructional supports to reduce or remove identified barriers, the candidates were asked to consider how the selected strategies might positively benefit all students. In total, 51 statements of positive feedback were provided in comparison to 20 statements of corrective feedback. These data indicate that in most cases, the candidates were able to consider ways in which the support required for some students with diverse learning needs may be beneficial for all students. For example, S19 shared, “I didn’t know the term for it at the time, but my clinical educator [CE] most certainly used UDL in her classroom and she taught me a lot about how making sure I am meeting the instructional needs of each of my students and to make all of their learning meaningful” (DF3).

For the qualitative data, we analyzed the candidate responses from the weekly assigned discussion posts. Regarding knowledge, the candidates demonstrated their knowledge by accurately describing the components of UDL or the application of UDL in an educational lesson context. For example, the candidates were able to articulate their knowledge of UDL and the guidelines within the framework. For example, from Theme 2a Diversity, a candidate reported, “You can’t just plan a lesson straight forward and expect it to reach every student. As a teacher, we have to be mindful of how we are teaching and have diverse methods of how we teach material, how we ask students to participate/stay engaged within our lesson, and how we examine how well our students are understanding a lesson” (S8, DF2). Another candidate reported how the course content challenged their thinking: “[The course] helped me really understand how to align lessons to meet the UDL guidelines and support all of my students. I think it challenged me to change the way I think about planning and adapting lessons” (S19, DF9).

For application of knowledge, from Theme 2b Inclusive Education, one candidate commented, “As we continue to observe in class, anything we do for students with diverse learning needs can be beneficial for all students. Every lesson can be adjusted with usually small changes that help to include all students” (F6, DF7). To demonstrate the knowledge of action and expression in action, one candidate stated,

“Overall, I find that the key is to set goals with multiple ways for students to showcase their learning in ways that learning can be captured in the best way for the student and not the one way that is being assessed”

(S1, DS4).

The candidates also noted their ability to take away their knowledge of course content for future use. For example, in Theme 3a Future Use, one candidate wrote, “This course’s most important academic strength is that it gets transferred to future professional skills such as managing the classroom and educational accommodations and modifications aligned with my students’ diverse learning needs” (Summer Course Evaluation).

3.2. Research Question 2: What Are the Perceptions of General Education Teacher Candidates Regarding the Use of UDL within Planning to Address Barriers to Instruction for All Learners?

The discussion posts served as the qualitative data source for research question 2. The candidates responded to weekly discussion posts following course instructions on a variety of topics and in response to their interaction with a range of resources.

3.2.1. Instructional Design

Theme 1 Instructional Design focused on the candidates’ descriptions of the intentional use of UDL to develop, implement, or assess candidate outcomes within the context of a specific strategy, lesson, or assessment tool. The candidates tended to discuss two things within this theme—UDL itself and planning using the principles of UDL.

3.2.2. UDL

During the coding process, the candidate discussion posts that included comments directly related to the application of specific principles, guidelines, or checkpoints within the UDL framework were noted as Category 1.1 UDL. This quote documented S17’s perception of the importance of educators embracing learner variability when engaging in instructional planning and considering opportunities for increasing student engagement.

The key is to really create a lesson that is inclusive from the start. Beginning with a lesson that already considered potential student challenges and limitations means that less adjustments and accommodations must be made later. Having opportunities for student choice and varying methods of content delivery is a great way to develop lessons that will be widely beneficial to all students (DF9).

The overall category of UDL also was further refined to include three additional codes: Engagement (Code 1.1a), Safe Learning Environment (Code 1.1.b), and Accessibility (Barriers; Code 1.1c). These codes provided further insight into the candidates’ perceptions regarding students’ role in the learning process, the importance and impact of establishing positive and supportive learning environments, and deliberate ways in which meaningful participation in curriculum and instruction can help support all students, especially those with more diverse learning needs.

Engagement

The candidate discussion posts that included statements related to their perception of students’ active participation in their learning were included as a part of Code 1.1a Engagement. Over the duration of the course, the candidates’ understanding of active engagement evolved from simply an instructional strategy they have heard about in previous classes to a more purposeful way in which students acquire content and build fluency in skills. For example, one visual arts candidate noted, “Allowing for meaning-making in the art classroom opens the doors for endless possibilities and outcomes for student projects. Students become more invested in their work when they find true meaning and purpose in doing so” (S3, DF3).

3.2.3. Safe Learning Environment

The weekly products that included comments associated with the candidates’ plans for establishing comfortable and supportive learning environments were included in Code 1.1b Safe Learning Environment. One candidate documented their perception of the importance of establishing what they would consider an effective learning environment by saying, “Just as no two classes are exactly alike, no two students are exactly alike either. The better teachers foster relationships within their classrooms, the more students will feel safe, comfortable, confident, and excited to come to class and learn” (S3, DF4).

3.2.4. Accessibility (Barriers)

Code 1.1c Accessibility (Barriers) captured the candidates’ perception of accessibility and ways in which barriers to students’ meaningful participation in their learning environments could be reduced or removed. For example, F6 commented, “I believe that having different approaches makes it easier for us as educators to foster inclusion in our classroom. Learning doesn’t have to look the same for everyone to be considered effective” (DF3). Furthermore, in relation to the overall concept of accessibility specifically related to students with more diverse learning needs in general education settings, one candidate noted, “The barriers that students with extensive support needs may experience within group questions is something that might be easily overlooked, just like [the use of] opportunities to respond itself” (F7, DF8).

3.2.5. Planning

Category 1.2 Planning captured the candidates’ perception of the importance to which UDL is intentionally considered and applied to high-leverage and evidence-based practices (EBP) during the instructional design process. For example, F3 noted in DF3,

It is important for us as educators to not value one form of information acquisition more than another. The goal is for students to learn something, and learning occurs in different ways for everybody. Some students need very specific differentiation to learn, but it is vital to understand that, if the lesson is crafted with care, they are still learning.

Another candidate furthered this point in the discussion thread by adding, “With proper planning and care, every student can participate in all classroom activities” (S10, DF4).

Strategies and Tools

When discussing the perceptions of instructional planning, the candidates often made statements regarding specific strategies or tools used to deliver content or engage students in the learning process. For example, one candidate shared, “I think that circle chats and think-pair-shares are great activities for enhancing student interaction and allow the teacher to get a better idea of how well some students are comprehending the material, especially those who usually do not speak up in whole group discussions” (S20, DF7).

In reference to another EBP, a second candidate noted, “Visual aids are only as helpful as the supporting conversations and activities they are used in. I think that using visual aids appropriately and intentionally have the potential to benefit all students with their unique strengths and challenges” (S17, DF8). As a follow up to this comment, a third candidate stated they perceived,

…visual aids should be used to make an impact on the engagement of the lesson and content in a way that supports students academic growth and must be created intentionally with the goal of helping students understand, remember and increase engagement and interest. I fully believe that visual aids with the right intent, goal and purpose set for students to interact with them allow for significant student gains in their engagement in the learning process.

(S1, DF8).

3.2.6. Beliefs and Dispositions

Theme 2 Beliefs and Dispositions focused on the candidates’ presumptions about learners or their expectations or practices in regard to supporting diverse learners in the classroom. This theme was then further expanded upon to include two categories, Value Diversity (Category 2.1) and Inclusive Education (All Students in General Education; Category 2.2) which more specifically took into consideration how candidates viewed diversity and inclusive opportunities for all students within general education settings. Over the course of the semester, the candidates experienced a positive transformation in their overall beliefs about learners with diverse needs and their ability to create more accessible and inclusive opportunities for them in their future classrooms.

Value Diversity

Category 2.1 Value Diversity examined the candidates’ perceptions of the role of UDL in response to learner variability or the needs of diverse learners and how the application of this framework can be used to support all learners. This category captured candidate comments such as, “Diverse learners are never less than, just different” (F7, DF14) further supporting their perspectives of the need for accepting and embracing all learners. Additionally, another student noted, “This class has shown me how easy it is to help all students. Diverse learners are not just students with disabilities, it’s all students and as a teacher, we should find ways to support all of them” (F1, DF14). This quote is significant because it begins to highlight the shift in the candidates’ perception of the term inclusion, moving beyond that of referring only to students with disabilities and becoming more synonymous with providing learning environments that consider the unique needs of all learners.

3.2.7. Inclusive Education (All Students in General Education)

The candidates’ perceptions of the relationship between UDL and inclusion to increase opportunities or reduce barriers for students with disabilities in accessing the general education curriculum within the general education classroom and be held to the same high expectations as their peers without disabilities were captured in Category 2.2 Inclusive Education (All students in general education). This category included comments related to the students’ honest reflection on their interactions with students with disabilities and the current perceptions of inclusive education. Over the course of the semester, the students’ perceptions of inclusive education evolved as they spent more time intentionally considering how UDL could help increase accessible learning opportunities for all students. For example, one student noted,

If I am being honest, before taking this class I didn’t spend a lot of time learning about students with special or diverse needs because of the content area I am in. In my educational experiences, I haven’t really seen any students with diverse needs in the dance classes that I participated in. Now completing my year-long internship, I have come into contact with so many students that fall under this umbrella.

(F6, Course Reflection).

While another student commented, “How could we expect any students to thrive and grow in an environment that does not want them to be there? Every student should feel wanted and comfortable in their classroom and school” (F1, DF2).

3.2.8. Candidate Experiences

Theme 3, Candidate Experience, documented the candidates’ perspectives on the key takeaways from the course content and how the knowledge and understanding gained during the course could be applied to future practice. This theme was further developed by incorporating the discussions of the candidates’ recognition of what they did or did not understand or observe during practice opportunities (e.g., clinical placements and student teaching experiences). The discussion posts included in this category often referred to resources candidates acquired through class participation that could be used in their continuing work as emerging practitioners, ways in which they felt content helped to better prepare them to be a teacher, and the reflections of UDL or the lack thereof during practical application experiences.

Resources for the Future

Category 3.1 Resources for the Future included comments specific to the candidates’ collection of resources for future use as inservice teachers. A variety of resources were noted in comments throughout this category such as those used to deliver (e.g., EBPs) and support (e.g., readings, videos, and websites) course instruction. For example, S9 discussed their understanding of course content stating, “I think that the strategies we discussed in class are going to be easily applied in my lessons, in my [internship] semester and further” (DS10). Another student (S5) called out a specific context for using UDL, “It is important that I create culturally responsive lessons in inclusive classrooms and give students options for how they learn and what they learn. I know that the strategies I have learned will help me throughout my career” (DS10). Additionally, S18 more broadly commented on how their experience in the course helped to prepare them for their future work in the classroom saying, “My experience from this course has allowed me to practice and learn new and important methods that I can incorporate into my classroom for all my future students” (DF14). This quote is evidence of the positive effects instruction had on the aspiring students’ application of course content.

Better Prepared to Be a Teacher

The weekly discussion posts that included comments related to the candidates’ positive perceptions of their ability to be a teacher for all learners were included in Category 3.2 Better Prepared to be a Teacher. One of the comments included in this category noted a candidate’s shift in their perspective when working with students with more diverse learning needs stating, “I did not have much interest or experience working going in-depth into the needs of diverse learners or how to modify my instruction to help them. But after taking this class, I found that working with learners of diverse needs is not as intimidating as I feared it would be” (F4, DF14). A second student reflected on their level of preparedness after engaging in course instruction noting,

“I feel like I learned a great deal on how to go about teaching students with diverse needs and I feel so much more prepared than I was 5 weeks ago. I am looking forward to moving forward in my theater education career with the new strategies I learned in my toolbox”

(S21, DF14).

While a third student referenced changes to their own practice saying, “This course definitely has allowed me to take a different look at my own instructional design and assess the challenges of learners with diverse needs” (F4, DF14).

Recognition of UDL/Lack of UDL

Category 3.3 Recognition of UDL/Lack of UDL was used to capture the candidates’ discussions of their observations or lack thereof related to the principles of UDL in previous coursework or field experiences. For example, S3 noted that “One of the main takeaways from this class was the UDL framework, which I had not been previously introduced to. I find it a bit shocking that the UDL framework was never introduced or mentioned in any of my previous courses, considering how important and useful it is when designing any type of lesson plan” (DF14).

Further emphasizing this point, another student commented, “When I first learned about UDL, I was not only intrigued but kind of disappointed that I had not heard about this sooner” (S1, DF2).

3.3. Research Question 3: To What Degree Can General Education Teacher Candidates Apply Practical Instructional and Learning Strategies That Make Instruction Effective for Students with Diverse Learning Needs?

To answer research question 3, we used both the quantitative and qualitative data. For the quantitative data, we used instructor feedback on student-developed instructional planning documents (see

Table 4. Instructional planning document feedback.

Group Planning Documents	Summer (N = 7)		Fall (N = 4)
	Positive	Corrective	Positive	Corrective
Content and Learning Goal	n = 30	n = 2	n = 9	n = 0
Evidence-based practices	n = 16	n = 2	n = 7	n = 3
Application of UDL	n = 53	n = 43	n = 18	n = 24
Removal of barrier	n = 61	n = 31	n = 15	n = 10
Benefits to all students	n = 38	n = 12	n = 13	n = 8

Note: the summer course had four group planning documents; the fall course only had three.

). To quantify these data, the research team conducted a frequency count of the number of positive and corrective feedback (e.g., how might you help to support students with self-regulation and executive functioning during this activity?) statements provided in their completed products based on the items in the assignment scoring guide. When examining the students’ application of course content, the first criterion assessed was the students’ ability to identify grade level-aligned content and construct learning goals that present flexible learning pathways for all students. Data from this section of the document indicated that the students received a total of 39 statements of positive feedback and 2 statements of corrective feedback across both sections of the course, suggesting that the students were able to successfully demonstrate their understanding of these criteria.

Second, when constructing their instructional planning documents, the students were asked to demonstrate their understanding and use of evidence-based practices that have been shown to produce positive outcomes for all students. Across all the instructional planning documents, a total of 23 statements of positive feedback were provided compared to 5 statements of corrective feedback. These data indicate that the students were able to successfully apply common evidence-based practices within various parts of their lessons to increase learning outcomes for all students. Additionally, our qualitative results from Theme 3 Better Prepared to be a Teacher corroborated these quantitative results. For example, S2 noted, “It is so amazing how something so simple such as thumbs up or thumbs down [opportunities to respond] can have such a big impact on learning. Since I am a student teaching this semester, I think I will consider using hand signals as a whole group response strategy” (DF6).

Third, when completing the instructional planning documents, the students were asked to demonstrate their application of the principles of UDL by indicating intentional places in which checkpoints had been included in their instructional design. In total, 71 statements of positive feedback were provided in comparison to 67 statements of corrective feedback. These data suggest that the students were able to intentionally apply the principles of UDL in some instances. For example, in Theme 3 Recognition of UDL/Lack of UDL, one student shared, “It was nice to realize that one of the strategies listed, I am already using.... without realizing it by asking specific and nonspecific questions to understand… [their] frustrations” (F2, DF6). Conversely, the data also supported the need for additional opportunities for the students to learn in this area. For example, the students reported the need for more experiential learning working with students with diverse learning needs. A student noted the following:

For me, with doing my lesson in 5th grade I found the student that only could speak and write his name and the student to be non-verbal in English to be very challenging to modify with the upper elementary curriculum and to develop a lesson that would decrease their barriers. Although I started from the beginning ensuring I reduced potential student barriers, I found myself wondering how I could modify a barrier for one student but not making it a barrier for another. For me, I think I would like more information on how to better support students with autism or ESL students as I felt I could create an accommodation for these students in a lower elementary setting but I was struggling with more of the descriptions of the students not meeting the academic grade level I that I thought the description was describing and the lesson I was creating.

(S1, DF9).

4. Discussion

In this study, we explored the evolution of general education candidates’ knowledge, perception, and the application of UDL within one course. Candidates in various programs—elementary education, middle secondary education, and arts education—completed discussion posts, instructional plans, and course evaluations which were used as data sources. Evidence in both quantitative and qualitative data documented the development of candidate recognition, beliefs, and the use of the principles of UDL that occurred in a cyclical manner as they continued to apply content throughout the course. This mixed methods study contributes to the research literature in multiple ways. Overall, the candidates came to class sharing a common broad belief that “all” students should be in any given classroom that grew with each provided student scenario to a perspective of what that belief looks like in practice. This is consistent with the previous literature in this area and confirms that many preservice candidates embrace the concept of inclusive education [18]. In collaboration, the candidates gained clarity in how UDL is applied within instructional planning and in turn, in their delivery of instruction. The evolution of a deeper understanding by the candidates of “all” was evident as was the transformation of their mindset regarding what inclusive education involved.

Of note were the candidate reports of the lack of the discussion and application of UDL in general education coursework regardless of the program. Consistent with the previous literature, several candidates reported not hearing about UDL in any prior course. Limited exposure to UDL reiterates the need identified in previous research for training in UDL [6,21,30].

The candidates, over time, were able to identify the use of UDL in action in their clinical field experiences as well as within the course itself. Some candidates reported connections between what they were learning to what educators were doing in classrooms and the benefits of those practices for all learners. This recognition is a critical aspect of the candidates making connections between the concepts of UDL and real-life applications [31]. Like findings from [32], other candidates recognized the implementation of UDL principles during course instruction. As the first author designed the course to model UDL as recommended in the literature [6,31], the students’ recognition of that in practice speaks to the level of understanding that occurred within the course. Conversely, some candidates identified instances in their field experiences where UDL was not applied and shared some ideas for what could have been implemented. Just as important, the candidates were able to identify the nonexamples, how they created barriers to learning for some students, and propose ways to rectify those situations.

Candidates’ self-efficacy regarding their use of UDL also increased because of the course assignments and activities. Like the findings of [31], the candidates reported an increase in their self-efficacy in designing instruction to meet the needs of a range of learners, which was also supported by instructor feedback. While the application of UDL and removal of barriers had the most corrective feedback points, the two categories also included the largest amount of positive feedback. As the candidates learned new strategies and were presented with new student scenarios, they were able to incorporate previously learned concepts while adding new ideas within each round of instructional planning. This evidence is important as it supports the candidates’ perceptions that they could use UDL during the instructional planning process. Overall, the students overwhelmingly reported being more knowledgeable in their understanding and application of UDL. This enhancement in self-efficacy helps to increase the likelihood that the students will generalize the skills learned during this course into their future roles as inservice educators.

Limitations

There were two limitations to the study to note. First, the demographic information within the IRB consent included class and program. Some additional information such as gender and ethnicity would have supported an increased transferability of findings. Second, the courses were different lengths of time (the summer course was 5 weeks; the fall course was 15 weeks). As such, the number of discussion boards in summer was reduced (i.e., 10) in comparison to the fall cohort (i.e., 14) and more data were available from a smaller set of students. However, as evidenced in the qualitative data included in the results, the summer cohort contributed significantly, and the instructor crafted the discussion boards in a way as to allow the summer cohort to cover the same amount of content options in fewer discussion boards.

5. Conclusions

Although legislation [33,34] recognizes the benefit of UDL for all students in assessments, technology, and instruction, this recognition does not frequently translate into general education teacher education preservice programming and candidate knowledge (research question 1). The candidates in our study regularly acknowledged their lack of exposure to UDL within the current elementary, middle/secondary, and art education programs. UDL is not and should not be a special education initiative. ESSA requires the incorporation of UDL within the design of assessments in math, English language, arts, and science at the state level [Section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xiii)]; the use of technology [Section 4104(b)(3)(C)(i)(II)]; and the development of a comprehensive literacy program that incorporates the principles of UDL [Section 2221(b)(1)(J)] at the local level to support the learning of all students. As most students with disabilities are included in general education classrooms 80% or more of the day [35], support for how federal legislation is incorporated into state policy that includes UDL in general education educator preparation programs is needed.

In regard to research question 2, it is not surprising that future educators came to the course saying, “all students should be included in classrooms”. Unfortunately, that perception does not always translate into practice. Society at large, including schools, is set up for the inclusion of those who are considered able and tend to be more separatist for those individuals who differ from the norm, particularly those individuals with more complex learning, communication, or needs. Bogart and Dunn [36] defined ableism as “stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and social oppression toward people with disabilities” (p. 651). Ableism is the idea that society is constructed to acknowledge or favor those who are considered able and to disregard those who are considered to not be able, including individuals with disabilities, who are often marginalized through both implicit and explicit biases. In the context of our study, up to this point in their program, these general education candidates had not been prepared to design instruction for students they deemed to “never be a member of their classroom” and would, therefore, not be their responsibility for instruction. The initial perspectives of these candidates about preparing lessons to address the needs of all students reflect a culture within society that typically does not create ownership of meeting the needs of all children. Advocacy for inclusion is essential within higher education preparation to change that perspective. Schools are a microcosm of the segregation of individuals with disabilities within society. The education system itself—purported to be the great equalizer—can create the acceptability of separatism and a less-than mentality when teacher preparation programs are not designed to change that narrative.

Finally, the need for the coverage of UDL across multiple courses is essential to prepare preservice educators for the reality of being able to apply (research question 3) UDL within planning to address the needs of students in current classrooms and to build educator self-efficacy in relation to planning with UDL. Educators who have higher levels of self-efficacy are less likely to burn out [37] and are more likely to stay engaged in their careers [38]. By teaching general education preservice teachers to plan using UDL, educator preparation programs can directly impact candidates’ skills and self-efficacy. Candidates need good models of planning and implementing instruction that includes UDL practices. Field experiences are critical features of practice-based preservice education programs. As some candidates were able to identify the use of UDL within their clinical classroom placements, it is essential that ALL candidates participate in diverse field experiences with CEs who not only model the use of UDL but who also are able to explicitly articulate the intentional way in which they incorporated these principles into their instructional design and the delivery of content to increase accessibility and meaningful participation for all students. By engaging preservice candidates in these types of experiences, candidates can make connections between UDL principles on paper and in practice.