Universal Design for Learning: The More, the Better?

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Autoren

Forschungs-netzwerk anzeigen

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Aufsatznummer164
FachzeitschriftEducation Sciences
Jahrgang11
Ausgabenummer4
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 1 Apr. 2021

Abstract

An experimental study investigated the effects of applying principles of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Focusing on epistemic beliefs (EBs) in inclusive science classes, we compared four groups who worked with learning environments based more or less on UDL principles and filled out an original version of a widely used EBs questionnaire or an adapted version using the Universal Design for Assessment (UDA). Based on measurement invariance analyses, a multiple indicator, and multiple cause (MIMIC) approach as well as multi-group panel models, the results do not support an outperformance of the extensive UDL environment. Moreover, the UDA-based questionnaire appears to be more adequately suited for detecting learning gains in an inclusive setting. The results emphasize how important it is to carefully adopt and introduce the UDL principles for learning and to care about test accessibility when conducting quantitative research in inclusive settings. View Full-Text

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Zitieren

Universal Design for Learning: The More, the Better? / Roski, Marvin; Walkowiak, Malte; Nehring, Andreas.
in: Education Sciences, Jahrgang 11, Nr. 4, 164, 01.04.2021.

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Roski, M, Walkowiak, M & Nehring, A 2021, 'Universal Design for Learning: The More, the Better?', Education Sciences, Jg. 11, Nr. 4, 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040164
Roski, M., Walkowiak, M., & Nehring, A. (2021). Universal Design for Learning: The More, the Better? Education Sciences, 11(4), Artikel 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040164
Roski M, Walkowiak M, Nehring A. Universal Design for Learning: The More, the Better? Education Sciences. 2021 Apr 1;11(4):164. doi: 10.3390/educsci11040164
Roski, Marvin ; Walkowiak, Malte ; Nehring, Andreas. / Universal Design for Learning: The More, the Better?. in: Education Sciences. 2021 ; Jahrgang 11, Nr. 4.
Download
@article{ffd840b419d4476daef6df48f272fd59,
title = "Universal Design for Learning: The More, the Better?",
abstract = "An experimental study investigated the effects of applying principles of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Focusing on epistemic beliefs (EBs) in inclusive science classes, we compared four groups who worked with learning environments based more or less on UDL principles and filled out an original version of a widely used EBs questionnaire or an adapted version using the Universal Design for Assessment (UDA). Based on measurement invariance analyses, a multiple indicator, and multiple cause (MIMIC) approach as well as multi-group panel models, the results do not support an outperformance of the extensive UDL environment. Moreover, the UDA-based questionnaire appears to be more adequately suited for detecting learning gains in an inclusive setting. The results emphasize how important it is to carefully adopt and introduce the UDL principles for learning and to care about test accessibility when conducting quantitative research in inclusive settings.",
keywords = "Epistemic beliefs, Inclusive science teaching, Science education, Universal design for assessments, Universal design for learning",
author = "Marvin Roski and Malte Walkowiak and Andreas Nehring",
year = "2021",
month = apr,
day = "1",
doi = "10.3390/educsci11040164",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
number = "4",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Universal Design for Learning: The More, the Better?

AU - Roski, Marvin

AU - Walkowiak, Malte

AU - Nehring, Andreas

PY - 2021/4/1

Y1 - 2021/4/1

N2 - An experimental study investigated the effects of applying principles of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Focusing on epistemic beliefs (EBs) in inclusive science classes, we compared four groups who worked with learning environments based more or less on UDL principles and filled out an original version of a widely used EBs questionnaire or an adapted version using the Universal Design for Assessment (UDA). Based on measurement invariance analyses, a multiple indicator, and multiple cause (MIMIC) approach as well as multi-group panel models, the results do not support an outperformance of the extensive UDL environment. Moreover, the UDA-based questionnaire appears to be more adequately suited for detecting learning gains in an inclusive setting. The results emphasize how important it is to carefully adopt and introduce the UDL principles for learning and to care about test accessibility when conducting quantitative research in inclusive settings.

AB - An experimental study investigated the effects of applying principles of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Focusing on epistemic beliefs (EBs) in inclusive science classes, we compared four groups who worked with learning environments based more or less on UDL principles and filled out an original version of a widely used EBs questionnaire or an adapted version using the Universal Design for Assessment (UDA). Based on measurement invariance analyses, a multiple indicator, and multiple cause (MIMIC) approach as well as multi-group panel models, the results do not support an outperformance of the extensive UDL environment. Moreover, the UDA-based questionnaire appears to be more adequately suited for detecting learning gains in an inclusive setting. The results emphasize how important it is to carefully adopt and introduce the UDL principles for learning and to care about test accessibility when conducting quantitative research in inclusive settings.

KW - Epistemic beliefs

KW - Inclusive science teaching

KW - Science education

KW - Universal design for assessments

KW - Universal design for learning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104181014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3390/educsci11040164

DO - 10.3390/educsci11040164

M3 - Article

VL - 11

JO - Education Sciences

JF - Education Sciences

SN - 2227-7102

IS - 4

M1 - 164

ER -

Von denselben Autoren