Pre-service Teachers' Beliefs: Impact of Training in Universal Design for Learning
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".