Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Romanian Dual Education: The Role of Basic Psychological Needs and Self-Perception in Student Engagement

Petronela  Piticari; Alina Chiracu; Doru Vlad Popovici

doi:10.56663/rop.v14i1.90

Authors

Petronela Piticari PhD candidate, University of Bucharest, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Romania
Alina Chiracu Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Bucharest https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5966-5742
Doru Vlad Popovici University of Bucharest, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56663/rop.v14i1.90

Keywords:

Universal Design for Learning (UDL), learning engagement and disengagement, basic psychological needs, self-perception, dual education

Abstract

This study examined the role of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in shaping engagement among Romanian dual-education students. A sample of 433 adolescents (aged 15–19) completed measures of perceived UDL principles implementation, basic psychological need satisfaction, self-perception, and learning engagement/disengagement. Results showed that UDL implementation positively predicted student engagement, but also, unexpectedly, learning disengagement. UDL was strongly associated with satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs, as well as with students’ self-perception. Mediation analyses indicated that psychological need satisfaction, especially competence, explained the link between UDL and both engagement and disengagement, while self-perception mediated only the relation with disengagement. These findings suggest that UDL has meaningful motivational benefits in dual-education contexts, but inconsistent or unbalanced implementation may contribute to ambivalent outcomes. Strengthening coherent, autonomy-supportive, and competence-enhancing practices is essential for maximizing the positive impact of UDL on adolescent learners.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Camera de Comerț și Industrie a României, CCIR. (2024). Învățământul profesional dual, soluție pentru forța de muncă. Disponibil la https://ccir.ro/invatamantul-profesional-dual-solutie-pentru-forta-de-munca/

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Author.

Comisia Europeană. (2023). Education and Training Monitor 2023. Available at https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2023/ro/country-reports/romania.html#4-vocational - education

Consiliul Uniunii Europene. (2023). Recomandarea Consiliului privind Programul național de reformă al României pentru 2023 și care include un aviz al Consiliului privind Programul de convergență al României pentru 2023. Available at https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9849-2023-REV-1/ro/pdf

Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2013). Improved lesson planning with Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(1), 7-27.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal Design for Learning in the classroom:Practical applications. Guilford Press.

Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations. Guilford Press.

Harter, S. (2012). Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents: Manual and Questionnaires. University of Denver.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Jenkins-Guarnieri, Michael A., Vaughan, Angela L., & Wright, Stephen L. (2015). Development of a self-determination measure for college students: Validity evidence for the Basic Needs Satisfaction at College Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 48(4), 266-284. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0748175615578737

Jiménez, T., Graf, V., & Rose, D. H. (2020). Using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to support diverse learners in the classroom: A case study. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(7), 775-789.

Katz, I. (2013). Enhancing students' engagement with school by fostering autonomy: A motivational model. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(12), 863-877.

Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 429–442.

Katz, J., & Porath, M. (2011). Adolescents’ perceptions of the quality of their own and their best friends' experiences in school. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(1), 51-68.

Katz, J., & Sugden, R. (2013). The Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153–194.

Katz, J. (2013). The Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194.

McGhie-Richmond, D., & Sung, A. (2013). Application of the UDL principles to construct inclusive classroom learning experiences for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(3), 231–248.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

Novak, K., & Rodriguez, K. (2016). UDL Now!: A Teacher's Guide to Applying Universal Design for Learning in Today's Classrooms. CAST Professional Publishing.

Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A review of research on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(3), 233–249.

Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. In Big Theories Revisited (pp. 31-60).

Rose, D. H., & Dalton, B. (2009). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. Guilford Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2014). Developmental trajectories of school burnout: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 60-68.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation and learning. Pearson Education.

Skinner, E., Kindermann, T., & Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493-525.

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and Disaffection in the Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765-781. doi: 0.1037/a0012840

Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.

Van Petegem, S., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., & Beyers, W. (2008). The relation between autonomy and relatedness: Positive effects and the moderating role of identity in explaining academic engagement and school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 292-299.

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 89-92.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents' development of personal agency. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45-69). Information Age Publishing.

UNESCO. (2012). Regândirea educației: investiții în competențe pentru rezultate socio-economice mai bune (COM(2012)669).