Pre-service Teachers' Beliefs: Impact of Training in Universal Design for Learning

Abstract

Seventy-seven pre-service teachers enrolled in an introductory special education course completed a questionnaire on their beliefs about learning, teaching, and disability, before and after completing one of two randomly assigned training modules on Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Module A presented UDL as a strategy for meeting the specific needs of students with disabilities in a general education setting. Module B presented UDL as a framework to support all learners in the general education classroom through the creation of communities of learners. The Beliefs About Learning, Teaching, and Disability Questionnaire (BLTDQ) was administered with five subscales rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale that measure pre-service teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching, as representative of their epistemological beliefs, beliefs about disability (from pathognomonic to interventionist) and the role of the teacher in the general education classroom. Analyses of these results suggest that a significant change toward interventionist beliefs about learning, teaching, and disability occurred for participants who completed either module on UDL. Additionally, a small to moderate, positive relationship was identified between pre-service teachers’ beliefs about disability and their epistemological beliefs, with the strength of this relationship increasing following their training in UDL. These findings suggest that training in UDL can have a powerful and positive impact on pre-service teachers’ interventionist epistemological beliefs and beliefs about disability. Shifts toward interventionist beliefs are more likely to result in teaching practices that are more supportive of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Implications for teacher preparation and study limitations are also discussed.

The Measurement of Teacher’s Beliefs About Ability: Development of the Beliefs About Learning and Teaching Questionnaire

“…While there is room for development (see Lanterman, 2018, andSpecht et al, 2018, this issue), these results indicate preliminary supportive evidence for the use of the BLTQ in research addressing teachers' beliefs about ability, teaching, and learning. Assessing teachers' beliefs through the use of a valid and reliable assessment tool can provide insight into specific beliefs about ability, teaching, and learning that could aid in planning, implementing, and evaluating teaching practices, and could contribute to the existing body of knowledge about effective teaching in inclusive classrooms.…”

The Supporting Effective Teaching Project: 2. The Measures

“…SET researchers have attempted to design questions that tap teachers' beliefs about disability in a more cost-effective paper-and-pencil survey, the Beliefs About Learning and Teaching Questionnaire. It requires administration and factor analysis over a larger number of participants (see Glenn, 2018;Lanterman & Applequist, 2018).…”

The Administrator’s Role in Universal Design for Learning’s Successful Implementation

“…As referenced in ESSA (2015), UDL is scientifically valid and based on evidence of how a diverse spectrum of people learn best (Capp, 2017;CAST, n.d.). This teaching and learning approach advocates for flexibility, adaptability, student choice, and greater diversity through inclusion (Capp, 2017;CAST, n.d.;Lanterman & Applequist, 2018;Rao et al, 2017;Smith Canter et al, 2017).…”

“…Inclusive teaching strategies are the purposeful pedagogical methods to creating opportunities for all learners, including those with disabilities, to experience full membership or participation with their typically developing peers in a classroom community (Center for Teaching Innovation, n.d.; Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning, 2017;van Steen & Wilson, 2020). The very nature of the UDL framework and guidelines-advocating for multiple pathways centered on student choice and students' strengths-supports inclusion and inclusive teaching practices (Capp, 2017;Lanterman & Applequist, 2018;Rao et al, 2017;Smith Canter et al, 2017).…”