Effects of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) on Students’ Academic Achievement and Motivation in Chemistry

This study examined the effects of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)–based instruction on junior high school students’ academic achievement and selected motivational dimensions in chemistry. Using a descriptive and causal-comparative design, pretest–posttest data were collected from students who received UDL-based instruction following their teachers’ participation in a structured UDL professional development program. Results indicated statistically significant gains in students’ concept knowledge across schools and school classifications, with difference in the level of improvement. Analysis of motivational outcomes showed significant increases in students’ interest and engagement and self-efficacy, as well as a significant reduction in anxiety following UDL implementation. However, changes in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that while UDL-based instruction is associated with improved academic achievement and selected affective outcomes, its short-term effects on deeper motivational constructs may be limited. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the absence of a control group and the short duration of the intervention. Implications for instructional practice and directions for future research are discussed.

UDL, Academic Achievement, Motivation, Junior High School Students, Chemistry Education

1. Almeqdad, Q., Alodat, A., & Alquraan, M. (2023). The effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning on students’ motivation and academic outcomes: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 4, 100247. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Badilla-Quintana, M. G., González-Martínez, J. A., & Kloos, C. D. (2020). Teaching with augmented reality: From theory to practice. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 3223–3246. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Baumann, C., & Melle, I. (2019). Digital learning environments based on Universal Design for Learning in inclusive chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 577–590. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baurhoo, B., & Asghar, A. (2014). Inclusive science education: The role of Universal Design for Learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1324–1341. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bernard, J., & Dudek-Różycki, K. (2019). Differentiated instruction and scientific reasoning in chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(6), 1184–1192. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., & Brown, P. (2011). Examining the effect of class size on classroom engagement and teacher–pupil interaction: Differences in relation to pupil prior attainment and primary vs. secondary schools. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 715–730. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.04.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. Center for Applied Special Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Davies, P. L., Schelly, C. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning intervention. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(4), 331–347. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Doculan, J. A. (2022). Inclusive practices in high school chemistry using Universal Design for Learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 10(1), 45–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Drigas, A., & Kefalis, C. (2024). STEM education models integrating Universal Design for Learning. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 14(1), 50–66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Dumm, J. (2023). Reducing academic anxiety through Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 13(1), 90–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Easa, S., & Blonder, R. (2024). Enhancing motivation in chemistry education through inclusive instructional design. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(1), 134–148. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Holländer, M., & Melle, I. (2023). Accessibility in chemistry education through Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(4), 1420–1428. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. James, W. (2020). Equity and access in STEM education: A UDL perspective. Journal of STEM Education, 21(3), 14–23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kaya, D., & Kaya, E. (2022). Inclusive science classrooms and student attitudes. International Journal of Science Education, 44(9), 1427–1446. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. King-Sears, M. E., Johnson, T. M., Berkeley, S., Weiss, M. P., Peters-Burton, E. E., Evmenova, A. S., Menditto, S., & Hursh, J. C. (2015). An exploratory study of Universal Design for Learning in secondary science classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(4), 216–229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. King-Sears, M. E., & Johnson, T. M. (2020). Universal Design for Learning in chemistry instruction. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 23(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. King-Sears, M. E., Stefanidis, A., & Evmenova, A. (2023). Measuring fidelity and effectiveness of UDL implementation. Exceptionality, 31(2), 65–80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kontopoulou, M., & Drigas, A. (2020). UDL and special educational needs in science education. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 16(8), 34–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Marino, M. T., Israel, M., Beecher, C. C., & Basham, J. D. (2014). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of UDL implementation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 174–185. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Miano, J. L., Cruz, R. P., & Delgado, F. S. (n.d.). Effects of Universal Design for Learning–based instruction on secondary students’ chemistry achievement. Unpublished manuscript. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Michna, M., & Melle, I. (2018). Group size effects in inclusive chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 1256–1266. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Miller, E., & Lang, M. (2016). Epistemological assumptions in inclusive science classrooms. Science Education, 100(4), 732–756. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Mirza, M. A., Hossain, A., & Rahman, M. (2022). Impact of Universal Design for Learning on science achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 321–338. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Nasri, N. M., Roslan, S., Sekuan, M. I., & Bakar, K. A. (2021). Inclusive science education through Universal Design for Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(6), 805–829. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/13242/chapter/7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Nurramadhani, A., & Pratama, H. (2024). Universal Design for Learning in inclusive chemistry classrooms: A review. Journal of Chemical Education Research, 11(1), 22–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Pilgrim, M., & Ward, J. (2017). Universal Design for Learning in higher education science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(4), 42–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Rai, M., Choden, T., & Lhapchu, P. (2025). UDL-based chemistry instruction and conceptual understanding. Asian Journal of Science Education, 7(1), 55–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G. (2013). Universal Design for Learning and learner variability. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 66–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Reyes, J., Lawrie, G., & Thompson, C. (2022). Psychological safety and UDL in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(2), 356–370. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Rogers-Shaw, C., Carr-Chellman, A., & Choi, J. (2018). Universal Design for Learning: Guidelines for accessible instruction. Journal of Learning Design, 11(2), 7–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Scanlon, E. (2018). Access and participation in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(3), 251–264. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Schreffler, J., Vasquez, E., Chini, J. J., & James, W. (2019). Universal Design for Learning in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Sanguinetti, A. (2024). Student engagement through Universal Design for Learning. Educational Studies, 50(1), 85–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Squires, V. (2018). Online recovery programs and UDL course features. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(2), 135–154. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Tobin, T. J. (2021). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal Design for Learning in higher education. West Virginia University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2023). Motivation and engagement in higher education: An overview of research and theory. MDPI Education, 5(3), 40. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-6470/5/3/40 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Green Synthesis of Cobalt Oxide/Gold (Coo/Au) Bimetallic Nanoparticles Using Sinapinic Acid: A Comprehensive Study
• Advances in Solar Cell Technologies: A Comprehensive Review of Material Synthesis, Structural Properties, Efficiency and Diverse Applications
• Thermal Decomposition of Co-Fe-Cr-Citrate Complex Via Structural and Spectral Study
• Surface Activity and Thermodynamic Assessment of Surfactants Derived from Oreochromis Niloticus Oil (Nile Tilapia Fish)
• Green Synthesis of Robust Metal-Organic Frameworks: A Sustainable Approach for Advanced Applications