Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices about two

inclusive frameworks: Universal Design for Learning and
differentiated instruction
Júlia Griful-Freixenet a, *, Katrien Struyven a, b, Wendelien Vantieghem a
a
Department of Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
b
School for Educational Studies, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium

h i g h l i g h t s

UDL and DI practices are different but highly interrelated types of inclusive teaching practices.

Ongoing assessment, self-efficacy, self-regulation and motivation are shared predictors of UDL and DI practices.

A distinct predictor exists, flexible grouping is a predictor of UDL only.

Both UDL and DI can be considered as two complementary approaches.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The interrelationship between UDL and DI has long been a topic of debate. This empirical study of pre-
Received 20 February 2020 service teachers has been carried out to explore underlying beliefs and practices about these two in-
Received in revised form clusive frameworks and to tap into their potential interrelationship. The results show that UDL and DI
15 May 2021
practices are different but highly interrelated. Both practices share important predictors (i.e., ongoing
Accepted 23 August 2021
Available online 1 September 2021
assessment, self-efficacy, self-regulation and motivation). However, flexible grouping was found to be a
predictor of UDL only. Overall, UDL and DI are perceived as two complementary approaches with suf-
ficient internal consistency to be integrated.
Keywords:
Universal design for learning (UDL)
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Differentiated instruction (DI)
Pre-service teacher education
Inclusive education
Quantitative research
Structural equation modelling

One of the leading movements in the international educational
arena is inclusive education. It aims to meet the learning needs of
all learners and promote equitable education for a more cohesive
society (UNESCO, 2017). There are two pedagogical frameworks
with the potential to achieve this aim in the literature - Universal
Design for Learning (UDL) and Differentiated Instruction (DI)
(OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2004).
The UDL and DI frameworks are presented in the following
sections. It is clear that confusion exists as to how they differ and/or
match and how they relate to each other. This study aims to take
* Corresponding author. Department of Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit
Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
E-mail address: julia.griful.freixenet@vub.be (J. Griful-Freixenet).
the first step towards the empirical exploration of pre-service
teachers’ beliefs and practices about both UDL and DI frameworks
to provide evidence of the interrelationships between them and
further develop the theory in inclusive education research and
practice.
1. Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
The UDL framework was inspired by the architectural concept of
Universal Design (UD). This challenged architects to think of peo-
ple's diversity rather than the average human body when planning
and creating products and environments (Connell et al., 1997). In
the 1990s, Rose, Meyer, and colleagues at the Centre for Applied
Special Technology (CAST) in the United States (US) became
inspired by the UD concept and developed the UDL framework. The

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103503
0742-051X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem
UDL framework began by considering and learning from learners
‘in the margins’ (i.e., those who need different kinds of supports
and scaffolds to learn), and by including their needs in the design of
the curricula, materials, methods, and environments in order to
support access, participation, and progress for every learner (Meyer
& Rose, 2000; Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005). UDL also recognizes
that inherent variability in individual learners is the norm, and that
therefore the curriculum should be adapted to the learners rather
than the other way around (Hall et al., 2012). There are three core
principles in the UDL framework guidelines, as follows (CAST,
2018):

Provide multiple means of engagement (the ‘why’ of learning).
This consists of stimulating interest in learning, as well as sus-
tained effort and persistence for learning in different ways for all
students. This is done by providing flexible alternatives to stu-
dents so they can develop self-regulatory skills.

Provide multiple means of representation (the ‘what’ of
learning). This means presenting information and content in a
variety of ways in order to make them more accessible and
comprehensible to the students.

Provide multiple means of action and expression (the ‘how’ of
learning). This means designing alternative methods and sup-
ports of communication within the classroom setting. This al-
lows students to express themselves and what they know in the
most suitable way.
One of the most important and recent theoretical developments
in UDL theory is the appearance of teachers' habits of mind or
philosophies of teaching (Meyer et al., 2014). In the past, UDL
theory tended to focus more on the teaching practices of UDL than
on the teachers' pedagogical thinking (Rose & Meyer, 2002). By
explicitly including three components of teaching philosophy in
the recent model, teachers’ pedagogical thinking is explicitly taking
on a key role in UDL. These three components are: growth mindset,
self-efficacy, and self-regulation and motivation for teaching
(Meyer et al., 2014).
First, the growth mindset consists of implicit beliefs about the
stability of ability (Dweck, 1999). Dweck (2006) argues that the
growth mindset can be measured between two ends of a spectrum
ranging from a fixed to a growth mindset. Under a growth mindset
teachers believe that students' intellectual abilities can be devel-
oped through dedication and persistence, particularly in chal-
lenging situations. Consequently, they are more inclined to
promote supportive and meaningful teaching practices and value
social and cooperative behaviours in class (Leroy et al., 2007). With
a fixed mindset, teachers tend to believe that students’ qualities,
such as their talent or intelligence are fixed. These teachers tend to
use more controlling teaching methods (Leroy et al., 2007) and
create a more competitive class climate (Trouilloud et al., 2006).
Second, based on Bandura's social cognitive theory (1977),
teachers' self-efficacy is defined as individuals' beliefs in their
capability to guide students to success. Research shows that
teachers' self-efficacy beliefs affect their behaviour and actions
(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), and because of this, students' moti-
vation and academic achievement is affected (Mojavezi & Tamiz,
2012). Teachers with high self-efficacy for teaching tend to use
better teaching strategies (e.g., encourage students' autonomy, less
criticism of wrong answers, better questioning, implement didactic
innovations) (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Guskey, 1988). A strong sense
of self-efficacy is considered one of the best predictors for the
successful implementation of inclusive practices by teachers
(Soodak et al., 1998).
Finally, teachers' self-regulation and motivation for teaching has
been included as the final construct in teachers' philosophy of UDL
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503
(Meyer et al., 2014). Within the Self- Determination theory (SDT)
(Deci & Ryan, 1985), the quality of individuals' motivation is
determined in terms of the extent to which motivation is autono-
mous vs. controlled in nature. Autonomous motivation consists of
two subcomponents: intrinsic and identified regulation. Within
teachers' motivation to teach, intrinsic regulation refers to teaching
because of the inherent satisfaction of the teaching activity, fol-
lowed by feelings of interest and curiosity. Identified regulation
refers to seeing the value of teaching as personally important.
Autonomously self-regulated teachers adopt a more autonomy-
supportive teaching style (i.e., students are encouraged to make
their own choices, and consider the students' frame of reference)
(Pelletier et al., 2002), which has an important impact on students'
learning outcomes (Assor et al., 2005; Reeve, 2009). Controlled
motivation consists of two subcomponents: introjected and
external regulation. Within teachers’ motivation to teach, intro-
jected regulation refers to teaching because of internal prods and
pressures (e.g., guilt, shame) and external regulation by external
pressures (e.g., opinions of colleagues, money or rewards).
Controlled motivated teachers tend to adopt a controlled teaching
style and motivate learners to think, feel and act using their own
frame of reference and ignoring their students' perspectives
(Soenens et al., 2012).
Another pedagogical framework that originated from the
architectural concept of UD is the Universal Design for Instruction
(UDI) (Scott et al., 2003). The UDI framework provides broader, less
specific guidelines for lesson and curriculum design. In contrast
with UDL, UDI addresses additional factors such as student-
instructor interactions, classroom environment, and accommoda-
tions. Moreover, UDI has been associated more with post-
secondary environments in the literature (Rao et al., 2014).
Despite different focuses, both models (i.e., UDL and UDI) refer to
the application of UD principles in an inclusive instructional envi-
ronment. However, we focused on UDL for this study since this
theory is one of the most prominent inclusive frameworks world-
wide (OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2016) not only in scientific literature
(Stegemann, 2016) but also in practice, sometimes even mandated
by law (e.g. in the US).
1.1. Differentiated instruction (DI)
Differentiated Instruction (DI) is rooted in the belief that student
diversity is ubiquitous in education. Therefore, teachers should
expect students to have diverse learning needs and adjust their
instruction accordingly. The leading DI framework was developed
by Tomlinson (1999) and was originally designed to meet the needs
of gifted students. However, it has evolved into both a philosophy
and a whole-classroom teaching approach (Tomlinson, 2005)
which aims to meet the learning needs of all students (Tomlinson,
2005, 2014). Three core principles or forms of responding to the
students’ differences guide the DI framework (Tomlinson, 2014), as
follows:

Differences in students' readiness (the ‘what’ of learning). This
focuses on differences according to a student's learning position
relative to the learning goals that are to be attained within a
given subject at a certain time, which stands for a state of
preparedness.

Differences in the learning profiles of students (the ‘how’ of
learning). This refers to a student's preferred mode of learning
which can be affected by various factors, such as preference,
gender, culture, and context.

Differences in students' interests (the ‘why’ of learning). This
consists of providing the opportunity to choose between as-
signments, subject matter or teaching methods.
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem
Other general principles of the DI framework are on-going
assessment and adaptations, and flexible grouping strategies.
Continuous assessment and DI are inseparable (Tomlinson, 2014).
For DI to be effective, teachers need to constantly assess the stu-
dents’ output (e.g., conversations, tasks, classroom behaviour) and
adjust their teaching accordingly (Hattie, 2012). Ongoing student-
centred assessment activities stimulate learning coherence by
collecting output to guide curriculum development and revision
processes. Moreover, these activities foster feedback, collaboration
among learners, boost high expectations, and respect diverse
learning styles (Huba & Freed, 2000; Webber, 2012). Research
shows that ongoing assessment which informs teaching and
learning is crucial to maximise learning opportunities for all pupils
and promote inclusive education (Moon, 2005).
Further, combining flexible grouping practices is necessary for
teachers to effectively differentiate instructions (Tomlinson, 2001).
Within-class flexible grouping strategies allow teachers ‘to match
students and tasks when necessary, and to observe and assess
students in a variety of groupings and task conditions’ (Tomlinson,
2001, p. 26). Research shows that physically placing pupils together
is not sufficient to ensure DI and increase student achievement
(Deunk et al., 2018). Flexible grouping practices therefore need to
be combined with adaptations of curricula, teaching methods and
instructional materials (Lou et al., 1996; Tieso, 2005).
Importantly, DI is not an isolated element. Tomlinson and Moon
(2013) stress that DI is part of a system composed of intertwined
constructs and preconditions that are crucial for its successful
implementation (Deunk et al., 2018; Van Geel et al., 2019). Among
these constructs is the concept of mindset (Dweck, 2006). As in the
UDL framework, DI proponents stress the importance of teachers
holding growth mindset beliefs about learning in order to suc-
cessfully implement DI (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). Teachers with a
more fixed mindset adopt less supportive meaningful teaching
practices (Leroy et al., 2007) as they tend to underestimate their
impact on student learning (Hattie, 2009). Research shows that
teachers with a more growth mindset tend to differentiate their
instruction more according to students’ interests, readiness and
learning profiles (Coubergs et al., 2017).
A second construct important for the successful implementation
of DI is teachers' perceptions of the use of curricula as a compass for
learning versus the observation of student learning (Tomlinson &
Imbeau, 2010). Research shows that teachers' observations of stu-
dent's learning predicts the use of DI, whereas a strict focus on the
curriculum and other external influences (e.g., school leaders,
parents, time pressures, governmental inspection) as a guide for
teaching demonstrates the contrary (Coubergs et al., 2017).
Teachers holding teacher-centred beliefs consider structure, disci-
pline, accountability (Chandler, 1999) and acquisition of knowledge
to be the most important part of learning (Nowell, 1992). In
contrast, student-centred teachers consider the learning process
more important (Ziegler & Yan, 2001), and spend more time on
exploration and creativity (Chandler, 1999), use more manipula-
tives, work in small groups, ask questions, and explore materials
(Wilson et al., 2002).
Until recently, there was no validated model to measure
teachers' philosophy and practices regarding DI. To address this,
Author and colleagues (2017) performed a validity study with path
analysis to measure DI based on Tomlinson's theory (2014), which
resulted in the ‘DI-Quest model’. The DI-Quest model comprises
five factors. ‘Growth mindset’ and ‘ethical compass’ factors repre-
sent DI as a philosophy. ‘Output ¼ Input’ and ‘flexible grouping’
factors represent differentiated classroom practices. These four
factors predict the fifth and core factor of DI which consists of
adapting teaching to students' readiness, interests and learning
profiles (Coubergs et al., 2017).
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503
1.2. The interrelationship between UDL and DI
Although both frameworks originate from different fields (i.e.
students with disabilities versus gifted students), the conceptual
similarities between both frameworks have become more exten-
sive (e.g., growth mindset), whereas the differences are more
difficult to perceive. This conceptual fuzziness has resulted in
confusion as to exactly how they relate to each other in practice,
and at research and policy levels (National Center on Universal
Design for Learning, 2012). This situation is especially acute
because educational practitioners worldwide are being encouraged
to use both frameworks (European Commission, 2017; OECD, 2018)
and in some countries, they are required to do so by law (e.g., in the
US in the Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008).
This conceptual overlap has led to an increasing number of
different interpretations in the literature about the interrelation-
ship between UDL and DI. For example, some scholars perceive that
UDL and DI are complementary approaches (Connor & Valle, 2015;
Freytag, 2008; van Kraayenoord, 2007). These authors recognize
numerous converging concepts related to inclusive education
characteristics in both frameworks (i.e. recognizing the learner as
unique, promoting student agency in curricular decisions,
expanding views on students' learning styles). However, these au-
thors also mention differences in terms of how and when instruc-
tional adjustments were made for students. Concretely, they
perceive that while UDL seeks to anticipate student needs at the
time of curriculum design, DI adapts the instruction retrospectively
in the planning process by using formative assessment to meet the
students' individual needs. Therefore, they propose combining both
UDL and DI. In contrast, other scholars perceive that DI is encom-
passed within the larger category of UDL (Arnett, 2010; Jime
nez
et al., 2007; Selmer & Floyd, 2012). These authors recognize that
a curriculum based on UDL would automatically support teachers
to differentiate their instruction and lead them to a ‘universal e
rather than specific e differentiation’. Therefore, the majority of
these authors do not report substantial similarities or differences
between UDL and DI, because they perceive DI as already being part
of UDL. Finally, other scholars perceive both UDL and DI as two
incompatible frameworks (Baglieri et al., 2011; Darrow, 2014; Franz
et al., 2016). Although they perceive that UDL and DI share some
theoretical concepts related to the inclusive education paradigm
(i.e., embracing students' differences, considering individual
needs). These scholars also perceive notable differences; they see
UDL as a proactive approach, while DI is considered reactive.
Another difference is that UDL gives all students access to similar
academic rigour, whereas DI assumes a baseline first and then
modifies it ‘up’ or ‘down’ for particular individuals (usually strug-
gling learners). Because of these differences, these authors perceive
UDL and DI as two opposite approaches.
These different interpretations of the interrelationship between
UDL and DI (i.e., complementary, embedded and incompatible)
have only been discussed on a theoretical level. It can therefore be
concluded that a complete lack of empirical testing of the potential
interrelationships between UDL and DI exists which has led to
confusion as to the exact nature of any interrelationship (Griful-
Freixenet et al., 2020). A necessary and long overdue step is to
empirically explore and test both frameworks and tap directly into
the interrelationships.
Therefore, this study explores both the UDL and DI conceptual
frameworks empirically. First, the interrelationship between the
UDL and DI practices are tested. Where results indicate that they
can be considered as empirically distinct factors the analysis is
continued to determine how both practices can be predicted by the
constructs outlined in their respective theoretical frameworks. The
UDL predictor variables consist of growth mindset, self-efficacy and
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503

self-regulation and motivation. The DI predictor variables consist of Table 1

growth mindset, ethical compass, ongoing assessment and flexible Sample descriptives (n ¼ 1134).

grouping. However, where the results show that the DI and the UDL Gender N %
practices are highly related factors, the predictor variables of both Male 550 48.5
frameworks and how they can simultaneously contribute to predict Female 584 51.5
both DI and UDL practices are explored. Language at home
Previous research shows that teachers' willingness to imple- 2 parents speak Dutch 1052 92.8
0 or 1 parent speak Dutch 82 7.2
ment pedagogical approaches such as UDL and DI can be strongly
Bachelor year
predicted by their educational beliefs (Hattie, 2012). As most first year 87 7.7
teachers' beliefs develop during their teacher education pro- second year 442 39.0
grammes (Bransford et al., 2005; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002), this third year 605 53.4
Higher Education Institution
study focuses on the pre-service teacher level. UDL and DI are
Higher Education Institution 1 355 31.3
getting more attention in teacher training programs, and as a Higher Education Institution 2 237 20.9
consequence, pre-service teachers are currently being taught about Higher Education Institution 3 205 18.1
them both. Hence, it is important to get a clearer image on how the Higher Education Institution 4 171 15.1
theoretical content and experience (i.e., during the internships) of Higher Education Institution 5 102 9.0
Higher Education Institution 6 30 2.6
both frameworks is represented in pre-service teacher's minds
Higher Education Institution 7 17 1.5
before they enter in the teacher profession. Moreover, several Higher Education Institution 8 17 1.5
socio-demographic and contextual variables such as gender, Highest diploma mother
ethnicity, socio-economic status, higher education institution, higher education 655 57.8
bachelor year, and relationship with a person with a disability have secondary education 395 34.8
primary education 45 4.0
been found to influence pre-service teachers' development of be- no diploma 20 1.8
liefs and practices regarding inclusive education (Forlin et al., 2009; unknown 19 1.7
Kahn et al., 2014; Vantieghem et al., 2018; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). Relationship person disability
Therefore, they are included in the UDL and DI prediction models. yes 614 54.1
no 520 45.9

2. Methods Note: due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100%.

2.1. Participants and procedures

measures inclusive instruction practices based on the tenets of
Universal Design (UD) across several pedagogical frameworks such
This study is part of the ‘POTENTIAL e Power to Teach All’
as UDL (Rose et al., 2006) and other UD frameworks (i.e., UDI).
project. The data was collected in October 2017 from a sample of
Because our study focuses on the most prominent UD framework
student teachers in secondary education enrolled in eight teacher
(i.e., UDL), items that captured one or more UDL principles and
education colleges. The colleges all offer a three-year professional
were suitable to pre-service teachers' context were selected,
bachelor programme (180 credits) to become secondary school
resulting in an instrument of 10 items with a 7-point Likert scale
teachers. The colleges were selected from a list of all Flemish col-
(0 ¼ never, 6 ¼ always). A principal component analysis indicated
leges who provide teacher education (i.e., 14 in total) provided by
that the items loaded on a single factor. This factor explained 50.4%
the Flemish Department of Education (Belgium). Eight institutions
of the variance and there was a clear drop in eigenvalues between
from the list covering every province in Flanders and pertaining to
the first and second retained factor (i.e., 5.04, 0.97). All the factor
different authorities were selected. All eight institutions decided to
loadings were above 0.60. and the Cronbach's alpha was .89. The
take part in the study. As such, the data was able to represent the
resulting scale and its descriptive statistics can be found in Table 2.
broader Flemish educational field on these key parameters. The
Differentiated Instruction (DI) teaching practices. The pre-service
pre-service teachers were contacted by email based on the details
teachers' use of DI was measured using the ‘use of differentiated
supplied by the teacher education institutions. The survey was
instruction’ subscale of the validated DI-QUEST instrument
designed to have a response time of approximately 30 min. A series
(Coubergs et al., 2017) aimed at measuring teachers' perceptions
of reminder emails were sent out to increase participation. In total,
and practices of DI. This validated subscale measures the teachers'
4775 pre-service teachers preparing to teach in secondary educa-
adaptation of their classroom practices related to students' differ-
tion were contacted. From those, 2349 began the survey, repre-
ences in learning, related to readiness, interest and learning profile
senting an initial response rate of 49.2%, with an attrition rate of
(number of items ¼ 8). This subscale consists of eight items with a
1.4% (i.e., 34 participants stopped filling out the survey). As the
7-point Likert scale (0 ¼ never, 6 ¼ always). It had a Cronbach's
dependent variables include teaching practice, only those partici-
alpha of .86. The descriptive statistics can be found in Table 3.
pants who indicated that they had more than two weeks teaching
experience were selected. Hence, 1134 pre-service teachers with
more than two weeks teaching experience provided data for each of 3.2. Independent variables
the study variables. Of the 1134 participants, 51.5% were female
with a mean age of 21.5 years (SD ¼ 1.57 years). Additional sample Growth mindset about learning. The pre-service teachers' mind-
descriptives are presented in Table 1. set about learning was measured using the ‘growth mindset’ sub-
scale of the DI-QUEST instrument (Coubergs et al., 2017). The
3. Measures ‘growth mindset’ subscale is based on Dweck's theory (2006) and
taps whether the teaching mindset is more fixed or growth-
3.1. Dependent variables oriented. This subscale consists of four items with a 7-point Lik-
ert scale (0 ¼ totally disagree, 6 ¼ totally agree). The total score
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) teaching practices. The In- states how growth-oriented the pre-service teachers' mindset
clusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI) survey is a validated about learning is. The descriptive statistics of all the independent
instrument intended for college faculty (Lombardi et al., 2015) and variables can be found in Table 4.
4
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503

Table 2
Descriptive values for UDL practices questionnaire items (n ¼ 1134).

Item: I do … Mean SE SD KUR SKE Factor Loading

1. Summarize key points throughout each class session. 3.84 0.04 1.28 0.14 0.31 .649
2. Connect key points with larger course objectives during class sessions. 3.34 0.04 1.36 0.31 0.22 .639
3. Use technology so that my course material can be available in a variety of formats (e.g., both digital and 3.78 0.04 1.48 0.41 0.43 .698
printed course materials).
4. Use interactive technology to facilitate class communication and participation (e.g., discussion forum, 3.17 0.05 1.58 0.76 0.15 .659
smartschool, mobile apps, social media).
5. Present course information in multiple formats (e.g., texts, audio materials, visual materials). 3.91 0.04 1.38 0.12 0.51 .764
6. Create multiple opportunities for engagement. 3.91 0.03 1.15 0.25 0.34 .779
7. Use a variety of instructional formats in addition to lecture, such as small groups, peer assisted learning, 3.94 0.03 1.16 0.27 0.37 .708
and hands on activities.
8. Supplement class sessions and reading assignments with visual aids (e.g., photographs, videos, interactive 4.19 0.04 1.30 0.16 0.61 .746
simulations).
9. Allow students to demonstrate the knowledge and skills in ways other than traditional tests and exams 3.44 0.04 1.41 0.17 0.43 .726
(e.g., portfolios, written essays, oral presentations).
10. Allow students to express comprehension in multiple ways. 3.65 0.03 1.16 0.39 0.45 .722

Note: all items have values ranging between 0 and 6.

Table 3
Descriptive values for DI practices questionnaire items (n ¼ 1134).

Items Mean SE SD KUR SKE

1. I choose the learning content and teaching methods based on my students (e.g. interests, talents …) 3.63 0.04 1.34 0.14 0.30
2. I adjust my assessment based on my students (or groups of students). 3.02 0.04 1.38 0.43 0.11
3. During my lessons, different students work on different tasks with a different level of difficulty. 3.15 0.04 1.32 0.42 0.13
4. I adjust content to the level of every student in my class 3.21 0.04 1.34 0.42 0.10
5. During my lessons, my students can decide with me on which assignment they need to work. 2.33 0.04 1.26 0.13 0.33
6. Knowing my students, I select the learning content, materials and teaching methods. 3.80 0.35 1.19 0.02 0.26
7. Based on their learning profile, I let my students choose between learning content and teaching method. 2.46 0.41 1.36 0.44 0.18
8. During my lessons, I choose the learning content and teaching methods for my students based on the learning 3.12 0.40 1.34 0.23 0.13
profile of my students.

Note: all items have values ranging between 0 and 6.

Table 4
Descriptive statistics of the predictor variables under study (n ¼ 1134).

Variable Mean SE SD Skewness Kurtosis Range Min Max Cronbach's alpha

Growth mindset 4.33 0.03 0.96 1.04 1.83 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.79
Self-efficacy 3.54 0.02 0.59 0.80 2.80 5.00 0.00 5.00 0.78
Self-regulation and motivation 5.79 0.10 3.21 0.44 0.15 19.25 7.25 12.00 0.75
Ethical Compass 2.86 0.03 0.90 0.41 0.62 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.77
Ongoing assessment 4.45 0.03 0.95 0.17 0.39 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.75
Flexible grouping 3.22 0.02 0.70 0.57 1.86 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.83

Self-efficacy to implement inclusive practices. The subscale ‘Effi-
cacy to use inclusive instructions’ of The Teacher Efficacy for In-
clusive Practices (TEIP) instrument (Sharma et al., 2012) was used
to assess pre-service teachers' efficacy. It consists of six items with a
6-point Likert-type scale (0 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree)
that measures the pre-service teachers' perceptions of their
teaching efficacy in using strategies that promote the inclusion of
all learners.
Self-regulation and motivation for teaching. To assess the pre-
service teachers' self-regulation and motivation for teaching, we
used a version adapted for teachers (Soenens et al., 2012) of the
Academic Self-Regulation Scale (Ryan & Connell, 1989). This
adapted scale consists of four subscales, each containing four 5-
point Likert items (0 ¼ completely disagree, 4 ¼ completely
agree), measuring the external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic
motivation regarding teaching. The scale presents a stem followed
by rationales, such as: “I am motivated to teach because …“: “… I'm
supposed to do so” (External), “I want others to think I'm a good
teacher” (Introjected), “I want to learn new things” (Identified),
“Teaching is highly interesting for me” (Intrinsic). The reliabilities
(i.e., cronbach's alpha) of the different motivational subtypes were
satisfactory, ranging between 0.70 and 0.896. Similar to other re-
searchers (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005), the Relative Autonomy
Index (RAI) or relative autonomy for teaching was constructed by
summing the following weighted scores: external regulation 2;
introjected regulation 1; identified regulation þ1; and intrinsic
motivation þ2. In other words, the controlled subscales are
weighted negatively, and the autonomous subscales are weighted
positively, resulting in a scale where more negative scores indicate
a controlled motivation to teach and positive scores indicate a more
autonomous motivation to teach.
Teachers' ethical compass. This factor was measured using the
‘ethical compass’ subscale of the validated DI-QUEST instrument
(Coubergs et al., 2017). This subscale measures teachers' percep-
tions regarding strictly following a curriculum without taking the
students into consideration. The scale was slightly adapted for pre-
service teacher level. This subscale consists of six items with a 7-
point Likert scale (0 ¼ totally disagree, 6 ¼ totally agree). The
scale was reversed, consistent with the theoretical notion of an
‘ethical compass’ by Tomlinson: the more teachers feel autonomous

5
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem
when taking curriculum decisions in class, the more they are in-
clined to adapt their instruction to student interests, readiness and
learning profiles (Coubergs et al., 2017).
Ongoing assessment. This factor was measured using the
‘output ¼ input’ subscale of the DI-QUEST instrument (Coubergs
et al., 2017). This subscale measures teachers' use formative and
summative assessment to get information on the learning pro-
cesses of their students and adjust their lessons accordingly, as well
as using feedback as an engine for learning. This subscale consists of
four items with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ to
‘always’.
Flexible grouping and peer learning. This factor was measured
using the “flexible grouping and peer learning” subscale of the DI-
QUEST instrument (Coubergs et al., 2017). This subscale measures
teachers' perceptions about different forms of within-class
grouping and cooperative learning to address students learning
needs. This subscale consists of eight items with a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from ‘I totally disagree’ to ‘I totally agree’.
Sociodemographic and contextual covariates. Sociodemographic
and contextual variables assessed in this study are gender, language
at home, bachelor year, higher education institution, maternal ed-
ucation, and relationship with a person with a disability. Language
at home served as proxy for ethnic origin (Farkas, 2017). Maternal
educational attainment, was used as a proxy variable for socio-
economic status (SES) as it is the most commonly used indicator
of SES among (higher education) students (Ensminger & Fothergill,
2003) as they have not reached financial independency yet.
3.3. Plan of analysis
First, we constructed a measurement model, i.e., a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) with the 18 items (10 UDL practices items and
8 DI practices items) as indicators, the predefined number of factors
set to two (to obtain both a UDL and a DI factor), and using the
Weighted Least Square Mean and Variance (WLSMV) Adjusted
Estimator to take into account the ordinal character of the indicator
items. We used Geomin oblique rotation to allow for the resulting
two factors to correlate. Modification indices were inspected, and
we decided to allow for correlated error terms between indicators
loading on the same factor to take into account that similarly
worded indicators have similar non-random measurement error.
Model fit was evaluated with the following indices (Byrne, 2010):
(1) the Chi-Square test of Model Fit, the main index for evaluating
the global significance of a model; (2) the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI),
with values above 0.95 indicating good model fit; the Comparative
Fit Index (CFI), with values above 0.90 indicating good model fit;
and (3) the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA),
with values ranging from 0.08 to 0.05 or less, indicating good model
fit. Both UDL and DI practices appeared as two separate but inter-
related factors and therefore, we proceeded with constructing two
multivariate multivariable regression models predicting both UDL
and DI practices using a Structural Equation Model framework. A
first model included the predictor variables as proposed by UDL
and DI proponents, i.e., growth mindset, self-efficacy, and self-
regulation and motivation predicting the UDL practices factor,
and growth mindset, ethical compass, ongoing assessment, flexible
grouping predicting the DI practices factor, each time adjusting for
sociodemographic covariates. A second model included all poten-
tial predictors to simultaneously predict the UDL and DI practices
factors. Model fit was again evaluated using the indices described
above. To determine which factors were predicted best by the
proposed sets of predictors, we calculated the explained variance
by the included predictor variables for each model. Formal
6
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503
comparison of model fit was conducted using chi-square difference
testing (the DIFFTEST option in MPlus which takes into account the
use of the WSLMV adjusted estimator), with the first model as the
restricted model being nested within the second model, and the
null hypothesis being that including more predictors (the second
model) does not improve model fit compared to the restricted
model. All analyses were conducted using MPlus version 7.4.
4. Results
In the following section, we present the results of the three
models that were tested in this study. A first model consisted of a
measurement model that explored the pre-service teachers’ in-
clusive practices based on the assessed UDL and DI items. Both UDL
and DI practices appeared as two separate but interrelated teaching
practices and therefore, we proceeded with testing two multivar-
iate multivariable prediction models. A first prediction model
included both UDL and DI practices as outcome variables, and
included the predictor variables as proposed by UDL and DI pro-
ponents. A second prediction model included all theoretical pre-
dictor variables included in this study to simultaneously predict
UDL and DI practices.
4.1. Measurement model
A two-factor CFA was conducted including the items of UDL and
DI teaching practices as indicators. Initially, the fit indices indicated
a poor fit (X2 ¼ 2508.852, df ¼ 134, p < .001, CFI ¼ 0.868,
TLI ¼ 0.850, RMSEA ¼ 0.125). To improve the fit, we made changes
to the model based on two criteria: modification indices and
theoretical accordance (Schreiber et al., 2006). Modification indices
suggest which error terms are allowed to covary and estimate how
much the model fit would improve by allowing these covariances.
However, because these techniques are generally driven by data,
whether the changes indicated by the modification indices are
theoretically sensible for the model should also be considered.
Otherwise, model modifications may become exploratory and risk
inflating the Type 1 error (Schreiber et al., 2006). Based on modi-
fication indices and theoretical accordance, we allowed for 12 co-
variances between the error terms of those items that belong to the
same factor, which resulted in an acceptable fit to the data for the
two-factor measurement model (X2 ¼ 999.454, df ¼ 122, p < .001,
CFI ¼ 0.951, TLI ¼ 0.939, RMSEA ¼ 0.080) (see Fig. 1). It can be
concluded that both UDL and DI factors are separate constructs and
the model indicated a strong positive association between both
factors (r ¼ 0.663, p < .001).
4.2. Prediction model 1: structural model proposed by UDL and DI
proponents
Using the two-factor measurement model and including the
conceptual predictors of UDL and DI, a structural model was eval-
uated to test the associations proposed by UDL and DI proponents
(Meyer et al., 2014; Tomlinson, 2001). Table 5 shows the results of
the structural model (standardized effects). The full structural
model produced an acceptable model fit (X2 ¼ 4964.552, df ¼ 1709,
p < .001, CFI ¼ 0.921, TLI ¼ 0.917, RMSEA ¼ 0.041). Thus, we
concluded that the model 1 provided an adequate representation of
the data. Results from model 1 indicated that the predictors of UDL
explained significantly better the UDL practices (explained variance
R2 ¼ 71.7% [95% CI ¼ 67.0e76.4%]) than the DI predictors explained
the DI practices (explained variance ¼ 55.9% [95%
CI ¼ 51.6e60.2%]).
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503

efficacy had a substantial direct effect on UDL teaching practices

(b coefficient ¼ 0.739; p < .001). Motivation had also a significant
association with UDL teaching practices (b coefficient ¼ 0.295;
p < .001). However, growth mindset was not a significant predictor
for UDL practices (b coefficient ¼ 0.058; p ¼ .056).
As proposed by DI proponents (Tomlinson, 2001), ongoing
assessment had a substantial direct effect on DI teaching practices
(b coefficient ¼ 0.625; p < .001). Flexible Grouping had also a sig-
nificant association with DI teaching practices (b
coefficient ¼ 0.167; p < .001). However, Ethical Compass (b
coefficient ¼ 0.048; p ¼ .068) and Growth Mindset (b
coefficient ¼ 0.011; p ¼ .691) were not significant predictors of DI
practices in the sample of pre-service teachers.
Regarding the control variables of UDL, spoken language at
home was significantly related to implementing UDL, with partic-
ipants with none or one parent speaking Dutch scoring higher (b
coefficient ¼ 0.83; p ¼ .010) than those with two Dutch speaking
parents. Bachelor year was also related significantly to UDL prac-
tices, with students from first year (b coefficient ¼ 0.87; p ¼ .011)
and second year (b coefficient ¼ 0.76; p ¼ .026) scoring signifi-
cantly lower than the third-year bachelor students. Moreover, in
some cases the highest educational degree of the pre-service
teachers’ mother was also significantly related to the UDL prac-
tices. More specifically, participants whose mother was holding
only a primary diploma (b coefficient ¼ 0.081; p ¼ .013) or sec-
ondary education diploma (b coefficient ¼ 0.070; p ¼ .029) tended
to adopt more UDL practices than those whose mother had a higher
education diploma.
Regarding the control variables of DI, the higher education
institution that pre-service teachers attended was, in some cases,
significantly related to the implementation of DI practices. Specif-
ically, for participants attending higher education institution 2 (b
Fig. 1. Measurement model.

Table 5
Prediction Model 1.

Predictor variables UDL practices DI practices

Est (S.E) Est (S.E)

Self-efficacy 0.739 (0.021) *** //

Self-regulation and Motivation 0.295 (0.031) *** //
Growth mindset 0.058 (0.030) 0.011 (0.028)
Ethical compass // 0.048 (0.026)
Flexible grouping // 0.170 (0.028) ***
Ongoing assessment // 0.625 (0.022) ***
Covariates
Male (vs. Female) 0.057 (0.032) 0.02 (0.034)
0 or 1 parent speak Dutch at home (vs. 2 parents speak Dutch 0.083 (0.032) * 0.021 (0.033)
Highest education mother (ref ¼ higher education)
Secondary education 0.070 (0.032) * 0.019 (0.034)
Primary education 0.081 (0.032) * 0.075 (0.036) *
No diploma 0.014 (0.033) 0,021 (0.035)
Unknown 0.027 (0.031) 0.012 (0.033)
No relationship person with disability (vs.Yes) 0,058 (0.031) 0.035 (0.033)
Higher Education Institution (ref ¼ Higher Education Institution 1)
Higher Education Institution 2 0.048 (0.038) 0.082 (0.039) *
Higher Education Institution 3 0.029 (0.034) 0.164 (0.036) ***
Higher Education Institution 4 0.045 (0.037) 0.038 (0.038)
Higher Education Institution 5 0.009 (0.034) 0.043 (0.037)
Higher Education Institution 6 0.004 (0.036) 0.015 (0.033)
Higher Education Institution 7 0.010 (0.029) 0.019 (0.033)
Higher Education Institution 8 0.022 (0.032) 0.023 (0.031)
Bachelor year (ref ¼ Third year)
First year 0.087 (0.034) * 0.039 (0.035)
Second year 0.076 (0.034) * 0.029 (0.036)

Note: ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

As hypothesized by UDL proponents (Meyer et al., 2014), Self- coefficient ¼ 0.082; p ¼ .038) and higher education institution 3 (b

7
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503

coefficient ¼ 0.164; p < .001) versus the pre-service teachers
attending higher education institution 1. Similar to UDL, for some
cases the highest educational degree of the pre-service teachers’
mother was also significantly related to the UDL practices, more
specifically for participants whose mother was holding only a pri-
mary education diploma (b coefficient ¼ 0.075; p ¼ .035) versus the
ones whose mother had a higher education diploma.
4.3. Prediction model 2: the full structural model
Using the two-factor measurement model and including all
theoretical predictors for both UDL and DI, a second structural
model was evaluated. In this model, the associations of all the
predictors proposed by UDL and DI proponents were tested in order
to evaluate to which extent they predicted both UDL and DI prac-
tices. Table 6 shows the results of the structural model (standard-
ized effects). The full SEM produced an acceptable model fit
(X2 ¼ 4575.602, df ¼ 1704, p < .001, CFI ¼ 0.931, TLI ¼ 0.926,
RMSEA ¼ 0.039). Chi-Square difference testing showed that Pre-
diction Model 2 significantly fits the data better than Prediction
Model 1 (X2 ¼ 208.230, df ¼ 5, p < .001). Results from prediction
model 2 indicated that the predictors of both UDL and DI explained
significantly better the teaching practices based on UDL (explained
variance R2 ¼ 69.1% [95% CI ¼ 65.0e73.2%]) than the ones based on
DI (explained variance R2 ¼ 58.4% [95% CI ¼ 54.1e62.7%]).
Ongoing assessment was the most important predictor for both
DI (b coefficient ¼ 0.542; p < .001) and UDL teaching practices (b
coefficient ¼ 0.404; p < .001), indicating that those who report to
adopt a lot of ongoing assessment also tend to differentiate ac-
cording to students learning profile, interest and readiness, as well
as provide multiple accessible options into the learning environ-
ment. Self-efficacy had also a significant high association with both
UDL (b coefficient ¼ 0.386; p < .001) and DI teaching practices (b
coefficient ¼ 0.253; p < .001). Motivation had a significant associ-
ation with both UDL (b coefficient ¼ 0.295; p < .001) and DI
teaching practices (b coefficient ¼ 0.118; p < .001). However, Flex-
ible Grouping had only a significant association with UDL teaching
practices (b ¼ 0.089; p < .002) but not with DI (b
coefficient ¼ 0.042; p ¼ .195). Ethical Compass was not a significant
predictor for either UDL (b coefficient ¼ 0.021; p ¼ .326) or DI (b
coefficient ¼ 0.008; p ¼ .754), and neither was growth mindset
(UDL: b coefficient ¼ 0.044; p ¼ .078; DI: b coefficient ¼ 0.013;
p ¼ .637).
The control variables of UDL and DI were very similar to model
2. For UDL, spoken language at home was significantly related to
implementing UDL, with participants with 0 or 1 parent speaking
Dutch scoring higher (b coefficient ¼ 0.83; p ¼ .010) than partici-
pants with both parents speaking Dutch. Bachelor year was also
related significantly to UDL practices, with students from first (b
coefficient ¼ 0.87; p ¼ .012) and second year bachelor (b
coefficient ¼ 0.76; p ¼ .027) scoring significantly lower that third
year bachelor students. Moreover, for some cases the highest
educational degree of the pre-service teachers’ mother was also
significantly related to the UDL practices, more specifically for
participants whose mother was holding only a primary (b
coefficient ¼ 0.081; p ¼ .013) or secondary education diploma (b
coefficient ¼ 0.070; p ¼ .029) versus the ones whose mother had a
higher education diploma.
Regarding the control variables of DI, for some cases the higher
education institution that pre-service teachers attended was
significantly related to the DI actions, more specifically for partic-
ipants attending higher education institution 2 (b
coefficient ¼ 0.081; p ¼ .038) and higher education institution 3 (b
coefficient ¼ 0.163; p < .001) versus the ones attending higher
education institution 1. Moreover, for some cases the highest
educational degree of the pre-service teachers’ mother was also
significantly related to the UDL practices, more specifically for
participants whose mother was holding only a primary education
diploma (b coefficient ¼ 0.075; p ¼ .035) versus the ones whose
mother had a higher education diploma.

Table 6
Prediction Model 2.

Predictor variables UDL practices DI practices

Est (S.E) Est (S.E)

Self-efficacy 0.386 (0.031) *** 0.253 (0.033) ***

Self-regulation and Motivation 0.295 (0.031) *** 0.118 (0.034) **
Growth mindset 0.044 (0.025) 0.013 (0.027)
Ethical Compass 0.021 (0.021) 0.008 (0.026)
Flexible grouping 0.089 (0.029) ** 0.042 (0.032)
Ongoing assessment 0.404 (0.022) *** 0.542 (0.024) ***
Covariates
Male (vs. Female) 0.056 (0.032) 0.019 (0.034)
0 or 1 parent speak Dutch at home (vs. 2 parents speak Dutch) 0.083 (0.032) * 0.020 (0.033)
Highest education mother (ref ¼ higher education)
Secondary education 0.070 (0.032) * 0.019 (0.034)
Primary education 0.081 (0.032) * 0.075 (0.035) *
No diploma 0.014 (0.033) 0,021 (0.034)
Unknown 0.027 (0.031) 0.012 (0.033)
No relationship person with disability (vs.Yes) 0,058 (0.031) 0.035 (0.032)
Higher Education Institution (ref ¼ Higher education institution 1)
Higher education institution 2 0.048 (0.038) 0.081 (0.039) *
Higher education institution 3 0.029 (0.034) 0.163 (0.036) ***
Higher education institution 4 0.045 (0.037) 0.037 (0.038)
Higher education institution 5 0.009 (0.034) 0.043 (0.037)
Higher education institution 6 0.004 (0.036) 0.014 (0.033)
Higher education institution 7 0.010 (0.029) 0.019 (0.033)
Higher education institution 8 0.022 (0.032) 0.023 (0.031)
Bachelor year (ref ¼ Third year)
First year 0.087 (0.034) * 0.039 (0.035)
Second year 0.076 (0.034) * 0.029 (0.036)

Note: ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

8
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem
5. Discussion
As student diversity is the norm in today's schools, pre-service
teachers find that they need to understand how to effectively
meet the diverse needs of their students. UDL and DI are both
described as promising frameworks to meet the needs of all
learners, not only in scientific literature (Stegemann, 2016;
UNESCO, 2004; 2016), but also in law (e.g., in the US). However,
confusion persists regarding the two pedagogical frameworks,
especially about how they relate to each other. Due to the lack of
empirical testing of the potential interrelationship between UDL
and DI (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2020), this empirical study of pre-
service teachers was carried out to explore their beliefs and prac-
tices about both inclusive frameworks.
The results of this study show that the UDL and DI practices are
different, but that they are largely interrelated types of inclusive
teaching practice. The UDL practices focuses on providing multiple
accessible options in the learning environment based on the belief
that students will naturally gravitate towards the options that work
best for them. DI practice consists of adapting the curriculum and
teaching according to students' differences in learning (i.e., in-
terests, readiness and learning profiles). It can be concluded that
pre-service teachers who tend to implement UDL practices during
their field experience also tend to apply DI practices (and vice
versa).
The results from prediction model 1 (i.e., the structural model as
proposed by the UDL and DI proponents) show that most, but not
all, the conceptual antecedents proposed by the theoretical
frameworks (Meyer et al., 2014; Tomlinson, 2014) predicted the
UDL or DI teaching practices. For example, the growth mindset
about learning, the common predictor between UDL and DI, was
not a predictor for either the UDL or DI practices. One possible
explanation for this result may be the existence of a non-linear
relationship between growth mindset and inclusive practices,
which has been previously demonstrated for UDL practices among
pre-service teachers (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2021). This means that
a certain threshold of growth mindset needs to be reached before
pre-service teachers start implementing UDL and DI practices. This
is something that future research might take into account when
considering these relationships.
Regarding the UDL framework, self-efficacy for implementing
inclusive education appeared as the strongest predictor of UDL
practices. The findings show that to embrace teaching practices
based on UDL, the pre-service teachers need to feel efficacious in
designing an inclusive classroom where the needs of all students
can be met. This is in keeping with previous research which found
that teachers with high self-efficacy for teaching tend to use less
traditional teaching approaches preferring more student-centred
ones (Chen, 2010; Woolfolk et al., 1990). They use strategies that
better meet the learning needs of all their students (e.g., imple-
menting didactic innovations, using better questioning) (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984) which is in keeping with UDL theory.
The second most important predictor of UDL practices is self-
regulation and motivation for teaching. This finding is in keeping
with that in previous research where teachers with an autonomous
interpersonal style for teaching foster a sense of initiative and in-
terest in their students and use autonomy-supportive practices
(Soenens et al., 2012) aligned with UDL theory.
In relation to the DI framework, ongoing assessment was found
to be the strongest predictor of DI practices during pre-service
teachers' field experience. Pre-service teachers who use students'
outcomes as a source of information to adjust their instruction
accordingly, tend to embrace more DI practices. Similar results
were found in a study of teachers using ongoing assessment which
was the strongest predictor of DI practices (Coubergs et al., 2017).
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503
Flexible grouping strategies were also found to be a predictor of DI
practices, but to a lesser extent than ongoing assessment. Pre-
service teachers using grouping strategies in a flexible way tend
to embrace teaching practices based on DI. The research by Author
and colleagues (2017) shows that teachers who combine different
forms of flexible grouping report that they use DI practices more
often. The ethical compass was not found to be associated with DI
practices. However, research among teachers shows that an overly
rigid adherence to a curriculum that does not take students' needs
into account negatively predicts the use of DI practices (Coubergs
et al., 2017). This was not found in this study of pre-service
teachers. One explanation for this could be that this construct
mainly focuses on sources of information and pressures from
outside the classroom (e.g. the pressure to ‘cover the curriculum’ or
school leader demands) and pre-service teachers do not usually
have to cope with such pressures during their field experience.
Hence, it is plausible that this concept has no significant impact on
the practice of pre-service teachers, although this could change
once they become part of a school in the long-term, and is an issue
that could be checked in future research.
Results from prediction model 2 (i.e., the full structural model)
show that both UDL and DI practices share most of their conceptual
predictors: ongoing assessment, self-efficacy, and self-regulation
and motivation. Similar to prediction model 1, the growth mind-
set and ethical compass are not predictors of either UDL or DI
practices. Ongoing assessment appears as the strongest predictor
for both DI and UDL teaching practices. This is in keeping with
previous research which shows that assessment strategies that
constantly inform teaching and learning are crucial to enhance the
learning of all students and promote inclusive classrooms (Moon,
2005). Ongoing assessment has been a central conceptual
construct in DI since the origins of the theory (Tomlinson, 1999).
However, results from this empirical study show that ongoing
assessment should be a central construct for both frameworks. Self-
efficacy for implementing inclusive education appears as the sec-
ond most important predictor for both UDL and DI practices. Other
researchers have found that high self-efficacy is an essential pre-
dictor of implementation of DI among pre-service teachers
(Wertheim & Leyser, 2002). Overall, a strong sense of self-efficacy is
considered one of the best predictors of successful implementation
of inclusive practice (Soodak et al., 1998) and instructional quality
(Holzberger et al., 2013). Self-regulation and motivation to teach
also appear as a common predictor for both UDL and DI practices.
Specifically, the more autonomous the regulatory style of the pre-
service teachers' motivation for teaching, the more likely they are
to undertake UDL and DI practices. This finding is in keeping with
that of previous research where teachers with an autonomous
interpersonal style for teaching were found to foster a sense of
initiative and interest in their students and use autonomy-
supportive practices aligned with the UDL and DI theory (e.g.,
taking the students' frame of reference, providing choices and op-
portunities for initiative, and demonstrating intrinsic interest in the
learning material) (Assor & Kaplan, 2001; Soenens et al., 2012).
Interestingly, flexible grouping, a conceptual construct of DI theory,
appears only as a predictor of UDL practices. This study shows that
the more pre-service teachers adopt flexible grouping strategies
the more they undertake UDL practices but not DI. Previous studies
have shown that flexible grouping is important for supporting in-
clusive practice as students’ learning is augmented (Johnson &
Johnson, 1999; Kagan & Kagan, 2011). Overall, once again this
finding shows the complex entanglement between UDL and DI.
The control variables show a similar pattern in models 1 and 2.
Language spoken at home, which serves as proxy for ethnic origin,
is a predictor of UDL teaching practices. In this study, pre-service
teachers with at least one parent speaking a different language
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem
than Dutch at home (i.e., the official language of Flanders and
language of instruction), engaged more with UDL during their field
experience. Research shows that teachers who are culturally and
linguistically diverse are more aware of the educational challenges
faced by non-native language learners (Faez, 2012; Garvey &
Murray, 2004). In addition, multilingual teachers ‘can access
multilingual knowledge networks to inform their teaching’ (Han &
Singh, 2007, p. 296) and tend to apply different cultural perspec-
tives to the curriculum which are not always available to mono-
lingual teachers (Santoro, 2015). The educational attainment of
mothers, which was used as a proxy variable for socio-economic
status (SES), was also found to be a predictor of both UDL and DI
teaching practices. In this study, pre-service teachers whose
mothers had primary education diplomas only, engaged more in
UDL and DI than those whose mothers had higher education di-
plomas. In the case of UDL those pre-service teachers with mothers
holding a secondary education diploma engaged more in UDL than
those whose mothers had higher education diplomas. Previous
studies suggest that socio-economic levels can affect how pre-
service teachers learn to teach and their actual teaching perfor-
mance (Richardson, 1996). As suggested by Su (1997), more
disadvantaged pre-service teachers tend to perceive the ‘good
teacher’ as someone who not only cares for the children and their
learning, but also takes on the responsibility of transforming the
schools and society. These beliefs are highly aligned with the
mission of the inclusive education paradigm and the UDL and DI
frameworks.
Moreover, first-year and second-year bachelor student teachers
engaged significantly less in UDL practices than third-year bachelor
students, independently of the programme they were enrolled on.
As the number and duration of the field experience increases in
teacher education programmes, it can be speculated that teaching
experience will positively affect the implementation of UDL. On the
other hand, for DI, some teacher education programmes were
found to be a predictor of DI-implementation by their students. In
one particular teaching programme the student teachers engaged
more in DI practices whereas the student teachers on a different
programme adopted less DI. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
content and pedagogy of a teaching programme may influence
whether pre-service teachers’ implement DI during their field
experience.
In conclusion, when comparing our results to the three con-
ceptual interpretations of the UDL and DI relationships described in
the literature (i.e., complementarity, embedded and incompatible),
our findings indicate that UDL and DI teaching practices are
perceived as two complementary approaches by pre-service
teachers. More specifically, this complementarity stems from the
fact that they share three conceptual predictors (i.e., ongoing
assessment, self-efficacy and self-regulation and motivation) and
correlate with each other in a medium to high manner. These
findings make us rule out the incompatible interrelationship.
Moreover, each framework addresses certain constructs in more
depth than the other (Leaper, 2011) which discards the embedded
interrelationship of DI within UDL. For instance, ongoing assess-
ment is a greater predictor of DI whereas self-efficacy and self-
regulation and motivation are more important predictors of UDL
than DI. Interestingly, ongoing assessment is only part of the DI
framework, while self-efficacy and self-regulation are only part of
the UDL framework. Nevertheless, the results from this study show
that these indicators predict both inclusive practices. Moreover, a
distinct predictor exists, flexible grouping is a predictor of UDL only,
contrary to what might be expected from the DI theoretical
framework. The conceptual compatibility between UDL and DI was
acknowledged years ago by several scholars who claimed that both
need to be integrated. Beasley and Beck (2017) noticed that both
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503
frameworks diverge in terms of how they seek to accomplish the
common goal (i.e., meet the needs of all learners). The authors
perceived that DI places an emphasis on formative assessment to
inform the constant adaptation of instruction to meet all student
needs, whereas UDL creates a curriculum that anticipates student
needs and incorporates modifications into the curriculum from the
outset (Beasley & Beck, 2017). Similarly, Cha and Ahn (2014)
claimed that UDL theory is more effective when DI is put into
practice as it customises different evaluation methodologies to
students’ characteristics. However, until now, none of the research
provided an evidence-based argument to advocate a complemen-
tary interrelationship between UDL and DI frameworks.
5.1. Implications for theory
This study shows that the pre-service teacher practices of both
UDL and DI are complementary as they share their most important
predictors (i.e., ongoing assessment, self-efficacy, self-regulation
and motivation) and have the necessary internal consistency to be
integrated (Miller, 2002). Future research should make an effort to
replicate the three models tested in this study and test them on
different samples of pre-service teachers, and especially among in-
service teachers of different academic levels of schooling. Investi-
gating in-service teachers' beliefs of these models would be very
interesting as they are more experienced and may have a more
advanced interpretation of the intended actions of both frame-
works based on classroom experience. A ‘real confrontation’ of the
UDL and DI frameworks may need the inclusion of teachers. If
similar associations are found, then the next step would be to
scientifically integrate both theories. This could reduce the
continuous proliferation of ambiguous theories and conceptual
confusion regarding UDL and DI for practitioners and researchers
alike. Importantly, it may also provide a more complete picture of
inclusive education implementation.
Creating one integrated theory is a long-term goal for the field
(Sternberg, 2005). One way to integrate the two complementary
approaches would be to synthesise the strongest aspects of both
theories (Leaper, 2011). As shown in this study, the roots of UDL
practice exist in providing multiple accessible options in the
learning environment, whereas DI's roots can be found in adapting
the curriculum and teaching according to students' learning dif-
ferences (i.e., interests, learning profiles and readiness). These two
different elements could be included in an integrated theory.
Further, shared (i.e., ongoing assessment, self-efficacy and self-
regulation and motivation) and distinct (i.e., flexible grouping)
predictors need to be included in the integrated theory by high-
lighting the strongest associations, which are; ‘ongoing assessment’
with DI practice and ‘self-efficacy’, ‘self-regulation and motivation’
and ‘flexible grouping’ with UDL practice. Moreover, both the
‘growth mindset’ and ‘ethical compass’ could be left out of the in-
tegrated theory as they were found not to be predictors for either
UDL or DI practice, at least for pre-service teachers in Flanders.
It is important to bear in mind that both the UDL and DI
frameworks are still evolving. UDL theory seems to be developing
into a more flexible approach with customisable options, willing to
tackle individual needs. At the same time, DI is evolving into a
proactive whole-classroom design, which anticipates and offers
different avenues for all students towards the same learning goals.
Due to these concurrent evolutions towards similar end goals,
conceptual differences between the recent theories of UDL and DI
are less perceivable. Consequently, one might wonder if UDL and DI
could possibly refer to the same content and concepts, and are
merely using different terminology, with perhaps only slightly
different emphases (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2020, 2021). Future
research should try to operationalise each of the defining
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem
constructs and deduce specific hypotheses for each framework
using the most recent theoretical advancements (e.g., CAST, 2018;
Tomlinson, 2017). If the research shows hardly any real-world dif-
ferences between the constructs’ operationalisations or effects,
then the inclination to integrate both frameworks should be
considered. However, where this is the case, the researchers should
identify any conceptual redundancies, and make decisions about
which constructs and terms to favour over others (Leaper, 2011).
5.2. Implications for practice
This study could inspire teacher educators to reflect on and
reorient their teaching competences to maximise student teachers’
learning regarding both UDL and DI within the teacher education
programmes. Results from this study show that, to a certain extent,
UDL and DI remain two different teaching practices that must be
adopted in lessons to achieve an inclusive environment. Therefore,
pre-service teachers need to be trained to apply both UDL and DI
practices before entering the teaching profession.
Firstly, in this study the ongoing assessment construct appeared
to be the most important predictor for both UDL and DI practices.
Pre-service teachers need to be able to master different types of
assessment (pre-assessment, formative assessment, and summa-
tive assessment) which should be ongoing and integrated with
instruction, so that it is impossible to ‘tell where instruction ends
and assessment begins’ (Lambert, 1999, p. 12). To master these
skills, pre-service teachers must learn to systematically reflect on
and analyse the teaching and assessment strategies they use (i.e.,
the when, what, why of assessment) with the aim of improving
their practice. Importantly, pre-service teachers must be provided
with the structures and tools for the ongoing design, imple-
mentation, interpretation and communication of assessment. Pre-
service teachers should also be made aware of the consequences
of poor assessment.
Secondly, it is important to tackle pre-service teachers’ beliefs in
their self-efficacy to implement inclusive instruction, as this was
found to be the second most important predictor of UDL and DI
practices. One of the most effective sources of high self-efficacy is
the provision of experience in mastery (Bandura, 2001). Therefore,
it is important that teacher-educators teach the skills for designing
inclusive classrooms (Nougaret et al., 2005) as well as providing
scaffolding and support during field experience. This is particularly
true when pre-service teachers encounter challenging inclusive
teaching experience (e.g., using a variety of assessments, designing
individualised learning tasks) (Sharma et al., 2012).
Thirdly, pre-service teachers' self-regulation and to motivation
to teach was also found to be a predictor for UDL and DI practice. To
increase pre-service teachers’ autonomous motivation, teacher-
educators could help to foster a sense of belonging during lessons
and create opportunities to strengthen supportive relationships
among peers (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ultimately, a focus on both the
antecedents and practices of UDL and DI in teacher education may
prove to be a powerful strategy to enhance the inclusive classroom
practices of future teachers.
5.3. Limitations and suggestions for further research
There are several limitations to this study. First, the sample was
restricted to college students preparing for teaching in secondary
education with only two weeks or more of teaching experience.
Pre-service teachers are less experienced than in-service teachers
and might have difficulty to interpret the intended actions of both
frameworks based on classroom experience. We already see some
proof of that as first-year and second-year bachelor student
11
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503
teachers engaged significantly less in UDL practices than third-year
bachelor students. As the number and duration of the field expe-
rience increases in teacher education programmes, it can be spec-
ulated that teaching experience will positively affect the
implementation of UDL. To assess the robustness of our findings,
future research should examine if the same relationships appear in
samples of in-service teachers. In-service teachers may have more
experience with the UDL and DI methods, including the effects of
these methods on pupils, and will therefore be able to answer the
survey questions more accurately. Hence, a ‘real confrontation’ of
the UDL and DI frameworks may need the inclusion of in-service
teachers in these kinds of studies. However, it is also important to
mention that the perspective of pre-service teachers has some
benefits when exploring these frameworks; as they are being
taught about both UDL and DI in teacher training programs and will
be the adopters of these frameworks.
Second, the instruments used were self-reported surveys, which
allow for potential socially desirable responses. Triangulation or
use of other research methods (e.g. interviews, class observations,
video, focus groups) on UDL and DI could overcome this weakness.
Third, another limitation of this study relates to the survey used to
measure the UDL and DI practices. While the scales used capture
the main essence of UDL and DI practice, there is room for
improvement. Future research should focus on building a stronger
and more detailed survey by including recent theoretical ad-
vancements in both frameworks. Finally, future studies should also
examine in depth, the curriculum, didactics, approaches and the
field experiences of the teacher education programmes to explore
whether an effect exists on the adoption of DI and UDL by pre-
service teachers in their current and future classroom practice.
References
Arnett, K. (2010). Scaffolding inclusion in a grade 8 core French classroom: An
exploratory case study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(4), 557e582.
Assor, A., & Kaplan, H. (2001). Mapping the domain of autonomy support. In
A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation
research (pp. 101e120). Dordrecht: Springer.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling
teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and
boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 397e413.
Baglieri, S., Valle, J. W., Connor, D. J., & Gallagher, D. J. (2011). Disability studies in
education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 32(4), 267e278.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191e215.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52(1), 1e26.
Beasley, J. G., & Beck, D. E. (2017). Defining differentiation in cyber schools: What
online teachers say. TechTrends, 61(6), 550e559.
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-
Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers or a changing world: What
teachers should learn and Be able to do (pp. 1e39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Multivariate applications series. Structural equation modeling
with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2018). Universal design for learning guide-
lines version 2.2. CAST. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Universal Design for
Learning. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org.
Cha, H. J., & Ahn, M. L. (2014). Development of design guidelines for tools to pro-
mote differentiated instruction in classroom teaching. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 15(4), 511e523.
Chandler, L. (1999). Traditional schools, progressive schools: Do parents have a choice?
A case study of Ohio. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Chen, R. J. (2010). Investigating models for pre-service teachers' use of technology
to support student-centered learning. Computers & Education, 55(1), 32e42.
Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., &
Vanderheiden, G. (1997). Principles of universal design. Raleigh: North Carolina
State University, Center for Universal Design.
Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. W. (2015). A socio-cultural reframing of science and dis/
ability in education: Past problems, current concerns, and future possibilities.
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(4), 1103e1122.
Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Vanthournout, G., & Engels, N. (2017). Measuring
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem
teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction: The DI-Quest instrument
and model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 41e54.
Darrow, A. A. (2014). Differentiated instruction for students with disabilities: Using
DI in the music classroom. General Music Today, 28(2), 29e32.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-
determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109e134.
Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., & Bosker, R. J. (2018).
Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of
studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary educa-
tion. Educational Research Review, 24, 31e54.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and develop-
ment. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random
House.
Ensminger, M. E., & Fothergill, K. E. (2003). A Decade of measuring SES: What it tells
us and where to go from here. In Bornstein, & Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic
status, parenting, and child development (pp. 13e27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
European Commission. (2017). Preparing teachers for diversity. The role of Initial
Teacher education. Brussels: European Union.
Faez, F. (2012). Diverse teachers for diverse students: Internationally educated and
Canadian-born teachers' preparedness to teach English language learners. Ca-
nadian Journal of Education, 35(3), 64e84.
Farkas, L. (2017). Analysis and comparative review of equality data collection practices
in the European Union. Data collection in the field of ethnicity. Report comissioned
by the European Comission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in
changing pre-service teachers' attitudes, sentiments and concerns about in-
clusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195e209.
Franz, D. P., Ivy, J., & McKissick, B. R. (2016). Equity and access: All students are
mathematical problem solvers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues And Ideas, 89(2), 73e78.
Freytag, C. E. (2008). Reimagining excellence in inclusive education: Transforming
edict to ethic. Journal of Education & Christian Belief, 12(2), 129e143.
Garvey, E., & Murray, D. E. (2004). The multilingual teacher: Issues for teacher
education. Prospect, 19(2), 3e24.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569e582.
Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., & Vantieghem, W. (2021). Toward more inclusive
education: an empirical test of the universal design for learning conceptual
model among preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3), 381e395.
Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Vantieghem, W., & Gheyssens, E. (2020). Exploring
the interrelationship between universal design for learning (UDL) and differ-
entiated instruction (DI): A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 29,
100306.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education,
4(1), 63e69.
Hall, T., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (Eds.). (2012). Universal design for learning in the
classroom: Practical implications. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Han, J., & Singh, M. (2007). Getting world English speaking student teachers to the
top of the class: Making hope for ethno-cultural diversity in teacher education
robust. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 291e309.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact on learning. Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. 2008. 110-315, 122 U.S.C. x 3078.
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers' self-efficacy is related
to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 105(3), 774.
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner centered assessment on college campuses:
Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 24(9), 759e766.

nez, T. C., Graf, V. L., & Rose, E. (2007). Gaining access to general education: The
Jime
promise of universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2),
41e54.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory
Into Practice, 38(2), 67e73.
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2011). Kagan cooperative learning (2nd ed.). San Clemente,
CA: Kagan Publishing.
Kahn, L. G., Lindstrom, L., & Murray, C. (2014). Factors contributing to preservice
teachers' beliefs about diversity. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41(4), 53e70.
Lambert, L. T. (1999). Standards-based assessment of student learning: A compre-
hensive approach. Reston, VA: NASPE Publications.
Leaper, C. (2011). More similarities than differences in contemporary theories of
social development? A plea for theory bridging. In J. B. Benson (Ed.), Advances in
child development and behaviour (pp. 337e378). San Diego: Elsevier.
Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers'
implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy
supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 529e545.
Lombardi, A., Vukovic, B., & Sala-Bars, I. (2015). International comparisons of in-
clusive instruction among college faculty in Spain, Canada, and the United
States. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(4), 447e460.
12
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d'Appolonia, S. (1996).
Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66,
423e458.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. T. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory
and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
Miller, P. (2002). Theories of developmental psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Worth.
Mojavezi, A., & Tamiz, M. P. (2012). The impact of teacher self-efficacy on the stu-
dents' motivation and achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
2(3), 483e491.
Moon, T. R. (2005). The role of assessment in differentiation. Theory Into Practice,
44(3), 226e233.
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2012). Universal design for
learning (UDL): Initiatives on the move. National Center on UDL. Retrieved from
http://www.udlcenter.org/sites/udlcenter.org/files/UDL_Initiatives_on_the_
Move_May_2012.pdf.
Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. (2005). Does teacher education
produce better special education teachers? Exceptional Children, 71, 217e229.
Nowell, L. (1992). Rethinking the classroom: A community of inquiry. East Lansing, MI:
National Center for Research on Teach Learning.
OECD. (2018). Teaching for the future: Effective classrooms practices to transform ed-
ucation. Paris: OECD.
Pelletier, L. G., Se
guin-Le

vesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and
pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching
behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 186e196.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students
and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist,
44(3), 159e175.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In
J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher edu-
cation (pp. 102e119). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006).
Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on prin-
ciples and their application. Journal of postsecondary education and disability,
19(2), 135e151.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, M. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal
Design for Learning. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Cur-
riculum Development.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(5), 749e761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68e78.
Santoro, N. (2015). The drive to diversify the teaching profession: Narrow as-
sumptions, hidden complexities. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 18(6), 858e876.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting
structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A re-
view. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323e338.
Selmer, S. J., & Floyd, K. (2012). UDL for geometric length measurement. Teaching
Children's Mathematics, 19(3), 146e151.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to imple-
ment inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1),
12e21.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and re-
lations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher
burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611e625.
Soenens, B., Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Dochy, F., & Goossens, L. (2012). Psy-
chologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and me-
diators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 108e120.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-
determination in three life domains: The role of parents' and teachers' auton-
omy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(6), 589e604.
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school
attributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special
Education, 31(4), 480e497.
Stegemann, K. C. (2016). Learning disabilities in Canada. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 14(1), 53e62. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/
record/2016-58418-005.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream? Washington,
DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Su, Z. (1997). Teaching as a profession and as a career: Minority candidates' per-
spectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 325e340.
Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on
achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 60e89.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice?
Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 262e269. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15430421tip4403_11
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
J. Griful-Freixenet, K. Struyven and W. Vantieghem
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated
classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differ-
entiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Trouilloud, D., Sarrazin, P., Bressoux, P., & Bois, J. (2006). Relation between teachers'
early expectations and students' later perceived competence in physical edu-
cation classes: Autonomy-supportive climate as a moderator. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98(1), 75e86.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2004). Changing
teaching practices: Using curriculum differentiation to respond to students' di-
versity. UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). Learning
for all: Guidelines on the inclusion of learners with disabilities in open and distance
learning. UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). A guide for
ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO.
Van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Fre rejean, J., Dolmans, D., Van Merrie €nboer, J., &
Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 51e67.
13
Teaching and Teacher Education 107 (2021) 103503
van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2007). School and classroom practices in inclusive educa-
tion in Australia. Childhood Education, 83(6), 390e394.
Vantieghem, W., Van Avermaet, P., Groenez, S., & Lambert, M. (2018). Diversi-
teitsbarometer onderwijs vlaamse gemeenschap. In Diversiteitsbarometer
onderwijs (pp. 47e193). Els Keytsman.
Webber, K. L. (2012). The use of learner-centered assessment in US colleges and
universities. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 201e228.
Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and
differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 96(1), 54e63.
Wilson, B., Abbott, M., Joireman, J., & Stroh, H. (2002). The relations among school
environment variables and student achievement: A structural equation modeling
approach to effective schools research. East Lansing, MI: National Center for
Research on Teach Learning.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their
beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 137e148.
Ziegler, J. F., & Yan, W. (2001). Relationships of teaching, learning, and supervi- sion:
Their influence on student achievement in mathematics. Seattle, WA: Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association.
Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers' characteristics: Research on the de-
mographic profile. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying
teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education
(pp. 111e156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.