Skip to Main Content

Social Sciences and Childhood
2025. Vol. 6, no. 4, 5–23
doi:10.17759/ssc.2025060401
ISSN: 2713-0584 (online)

Evaluation of the universal design principles for university education: what the respondents did not mention

 
Audio is AI-generated
1

,

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english
GS
Information
in Google Scholar
Metrics

Abstract

Context and relevance. The research methodology of inclusive education has a number of complex issues that require attention and reflection. In research on Universal design for learning for higher education, it is important to analyze the tools the results are obtained with. The developed questionnaires and questionnaires need a more serious discussion, where, along with statistical data, it is necessary to carry out various data analysis angles. Objective. The purpose of this article is to identify “hidden” risks and resources in teachers' and students' assessment of the principles of universal design for learning as a result of the analysis of uncertain answers to questions. Research questions. Which principles of universal design for learning are the most difficult for teachers and students to evaluate? What does the tendency of respondents to avoid answering mean? How do teachers' doubts complement students' doubts, and where do they experience different difficulties? Methods and materials. The study was conducted using the author's questionnaire for teachers and students, consisting of 3 sections. The indicators are evaluated by the respondents on the Likert scale. The obtained data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software. The study period is April—May 2024 with the participation of 327 teachers and 3158 students of Tyumen state university. Results. In assessing the implementation of universal design for learning at the university, vague answers are more common among students than among teachers. Teachers' doubts more often indicate the choice of a socially acceptable option. In assessing communicative tolerance, a significant number of indicators have caused difficulties for both teachers and students. In evaluating the questions from the block “Representation” teachers were more likely to doubt what students were evaluating unambiguously: for example, the use of various technical capabilities. The least difficult questions for respondents are from the “Engagement” block, which can be a resource for solving the problems of inclusion. Conclusions. The results obtained confirm that the interpretation of data that is not usually analyzed during standard processing reveals significant additional analytical value. The proposed logic can also serve as a strategy for improving the questionnaire and correcting it. Tools aimed at more than one group of respondents provide a broader field for analysis.

General Information

Keywords: inclusive education, universal design for learning (UDL), university, Likert scale, social desirability, I find it difficult to answer, students, teachers

Journal rubric: Pedagogy and Psychology of Education

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/ssc.2025060401

Funding. This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation within the framework of a State assignment FEWZ-2023-0007 (agreement № 075-03-2025-157).

Acknowledgements. The authors are grateful to all the respondents for participating in the study.

Received 07.12.2025

Revised 17.12.2025

Accepted

Published

For citation: Bruk, Z.Yu., Fedina, L.V. (2025). Evaluation of the universal design principles for university education: what the respondents did not mention. Social Sciences and Childhood, 6(4), 5–23. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/ssc.2025060401

© Bruk Z.Yu., Fedina L.V., 2025

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

References

  1. Алехина, С.В. (Ред.). (2020). Модель и технология универсального дизайна обучения в условиях разнообразия образовательных потребностей обучающихся в начальной школе: методические рекомендации для учителей, специалистов психолого-педагогического сопровождения и методистов образовательных организаций. М.: МГППУ. URL: https://psyjournals.ru/nonserialpublications/mtude2020/mtudepdf (дата обращения: 14.11.2025).
    Alekhina, S.V. (Ed.). (2020). Model and Technology of Universal Design for Learning in the Context of Diverse Educational Needs of Primary School Students: Guidelines for Teachers, Psychological and Pedagogical Support Specialists, and Methodologists. Moscow: MSUPE Publ. (In Russ.). URL: https://psyjournals.ru/nonserialpublications/mtude2020/mtude2020.pdf (viewed: 14.11.2025).
  2. Брук, Ж.Ю. (2015). Педагогика многообразия: зарубежный опыт. Казанский педагогический журнал, 5-2(112), 265—268. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/vcfebb (дата обращения: 14.11.2025).
    Bruk, Zh.Yu. (2015). Diversity pedagogy: foreign experience. Kazan Pedagogical Journal, 5-2(112), 265–268. (In Russ.). URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/vcfebb (viewed: 14.11.2025).
  3. Волосникова, Л.М., Федина, Л.В. (2023). Инклюзивное совершенство: новая модель университета в XXI веке на основе универсального дизайна обучения. Психологическая наука и образование, 28(6), 24—32. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280602
    Volosnikova, L.M., Fedina, L.V. (2023). Inclusive Excellence: A new University Model in the 21st Century Based on Universal Design for Learning. Psychological Science and Education, 28(6), 24—32. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280602
  4. Рубцов, В.В., Саитгалиева, Г.Г., Денисова, О.А., Волосникова, Л.М., Гутерман, Л.А., Краснопевцева, Т.Ф., Борозинец, Н.М., Осьмук, Л.А. (2023). Цель, задачи и основные направления развития инклюзивного высшего образования в Российской Федерации. Психологическая наука и образование, 28(6), 6—23. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280601
    Rubtsov, V.V., Saitgalieva, G.G., Denisova, O.A., Volosnikova, L.M., Guterman, L.A., Krasnopevtseva, T.F., Borozinets, N.M., Osmuk, L.A. (2023). The Purpose, Objectives and Main Directions of the Development of Inclusive Higher Education in the Russian Federation. Psychological Science and Education, 28(6), 6—23. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280601
  5. Almeqdad, Q.I., Alodat, A.M., Alquraan, M.F., Mohaidat, M.A., Al-Makhzoomy, A.K. (2023). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10(1), Article 2218191. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2218191
  6. Arnaiz-Sánchez, P., De Haro-Rodríguez, R., Caballero, C.M., Martínez-Abellán, R. (2023). Barriers to Educational Inclusion in Initial Teacher Training. Societies, 13(2), Article 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020031
  7. Bäckström, M., Björklund, F. (2024). Why Forced-Choice and Likert Items Provide the Same Information on Personality, Including Social Desirability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(3), 549—576. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231178721
  8. Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2003). Assessing Personality and Psychopathology with Self-Report Inventories. In: J.R. Graham, J.A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology (pp. 553—577). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei1024
  9. Bradshaw, D.G. (2020). Examining Beliefs and Practices of Students With Hidden Disabilities and Universal Design for Learning in Institutions of Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(15), 12—20. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i15.3933
  10. Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischbeck, P.S., Stiber, N.A., Fischhoff, B. (2002). What Number is “Fifty-Fifty”?: Redistributing Excessive 50% Responses in Elicited Probabilities. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 713—723. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00063
  11. Cumming, T.M., Rose, M.C. (2022). Exploring universal design for learning as an accessibility tool in higher education: a review of the current literature. Australian Educational Researcher, 49, 1025—1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00471-7
  12. Denman, D.C., Baldwin, A.S., Betts, A.C., McQueen, A., Tiro, J.A. (2018). Reducing “I Don’t Know” Responses and Missing Survey Data: Implications for Measurement. Medical Decision Making, 38(6), 673—682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x18785159
  13. Dillman, D.A., Eltinge, J.L., Groves, R.M., Little, R.J.A. (Eds.). (2002). Survey Nonresponse. New York: Wiley.
  14. Durand, R.M., Lambert, Z.V. (1988). Don’t Know Responses in Surveys: Analyses and Interpretational Consequences. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 169—188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(88)90040-9
  15. Garrad, T.-A., Nolan, H. (2023). Rethinking higher education unit design: Embedding universal design for learning in online studies. Student Success, 14(1), 1—8. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.2300
  16. Gunderson, J.L., Cumming, T.M. (2022). Podcasting in higher education as a component of Universal Design for Learning: A systematic review of the literature. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(4), 591—601. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2075430
  17. Kelly, A.M., Padden, L., Fleming, B. (Eds.). (2023). Making Inclusive Higher Education a Reality: Creating a University for All (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003253631
  18. Köpfer, A. (2021). Rekonstruktion und Inklusion – Perspektiven und Spannungsfelder rekonstruktiver Inklusionsforschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft: Reconstruction and Inclusion – Perspectives and Ambivalences of Reconstructive Research in Inclusive Education. QfI – Qualifizierung für Inklusion, 3(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.21248/qfi.64
  19. Krosnick, J.A., Holbrook, A.L., Berent, M.K., Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., et al. (2002). The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(3), 371—403. https://doi.org/10.1086/341394
  20. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. New York. URL: https://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/Likert_1932.pdf (viewed: 27.11.2025).
  21. Martin, N., Wray, M., James, A., Draffan, E.A., Krupa, J., Turner, P. (2019). Implementing Inclusive Teaching and Learning in UK Higher Education – Utilising Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a Route to Excellence. Society for Research into Higher Education. URL: https://openresearch.lsbu.ac.uk/item/8666q (viewed: 27.11.2025).
  22. Murphy, M.P. (2021). Belief without evidence? A policy research note on Universal Design for Learning. Policy Futures in Education 19(3). Atticle 147821032094020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320940206
  23. Rapp, A.C., Corral-Granados, A. (2024). Understanding inclusive education – a theoretical contribution from system theory and the constructionist perspective. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(4), 423— https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1946725
  24. Rickwood, D.J., Coleman-Rose, C.L. (2023). The effect of survey administration mode on youth mental health measures: Social desirability bias and sensitive questions. Heliyon, 9(9), Article e20131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20131
  25. Schrum, M., Ghuy, M., Hedlund-Botti, E., Natarajan, M., Johnson, M., Gombolay, M. (2023). Concerning Trends in Likert Scale Usage in Human-Robot Interaction: Towards Improving Best Practices. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 12(3), Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3572784
  26. Shutaleva, A., Martyushev, N., Nikonova, Z., Savchenko, I., Kukartsev, V., Tynchenko, V., Tynchenko, Ya. (2023). Sustainability of Inclusive Education in Schools and Higher Education: Teachers and Students with Special Educational Needs. Sustainability, 15(4), Article 3011. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043011
  27. Stentiford, L., Koutsouris, G. (2022). Critically considering the ‘inclusive curriculum’ in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 43(8), 1250—1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2022.2122937
  28. Suárez-García, A., Álvarez-Hernández, M., Arce, E., Ribas, J.R. (2024). Exploring the Efficacy of Binary Surveys versus Likert Scales in Assessing Student Perspectives Using Bayesian Analysis. Applied Sciences, 14(10), Article 4189. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14104189
  29. Waters, E.A., Kiviniemi, M.T., Hay, J.L., Orom, H. (2022). Dismissing “Don’t Know” Responses to Perceived Risk Survey Items Threatens the Validity of Theoretical and Empirical Behavior-Change Research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(3), 841—851. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211017860
  30. Xie, J., Rice, M.F. (2021). Professional and social investment in universal design for learning in higher education: insights from a faculty development programme. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(7), 886—900. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1827372

Information About the Authors

Zhanna Y. Bruk, Candidate of Science (Education), Associate Professor, Chair of childhood`s psychology and pedagogy, School of Education, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2806-2513, e-mail: z.y.bruk@utmn.ru

Lyudmila V. Fedina, Candidate of Science (Education), Associate Professor, Chair of childhood`s psychology and pedagogy, School of Education, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2822-0692, e-mail: l.v.fedina@utmn.ru

Contribution of the authors

Zhanna Yu. Bruk — the idea of the manuscript; annotation, writing and design of the manuscript; planning of the research; application of statistical, mathematical methods for data analysis; conducting the experiment; data collection and analysis.

Ludmila V. Fedina — annotation, writing of the manuscript; application of statistical, mathematical methods for data analysis; conducting the experiment; data collection and analysis; visualization of research results.

All authors participated in the discussion of the results and approved the final text of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethics statement

The research was conducted in strict accordance with ethical standards outlined in the Helsinki Declaration (1964).

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 3
Previous month: 0
Current month: 3

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 1
Previous month: 0
Current month: 1

 Total

Whole time: 4
Previous month: 0
Current month: 4