Individual differences of people shape their needs, interests, and desires. Amid the flux of modern life, the needs we face are no longer fixed; they evolve alongside our shifting realities. Therefore, desires and interests are determined according to the current needs. It is important that the individual's equality so that both individuals and society can continue to live peacefully. To ensure this, Ronald Mace (1985) put forward the universal design principles he developed in architecture to include not only individuals with physical disabilities but also individuals who may experience physical disabilities in the future. In this framework, he listed the principles as equal use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive use, acceptance of information, tolerance of error, minimum physical effort, and sufficient space and size for use. However, individual differences and needs are not only physical. In educational environments, which is a process that helps shape future societies, Oxford (1992) stated that learning styles, academic levels, and abilities are the most common differences. And these environments should be inclusive, taking into account the individual differences of students (UNESCO, 2001).

Creating inclusive learning environments requires consideration of individual differences throughout the educational process. Rose (2000) emphasized that integrating universal design principles into learning environments allows for the development of curricula that address various needs. Additionally, Rose and Meyer (2002) noted that universal design for learning can help achieve both cognitive and pedagogical equality.

The performance indicators determined for the application of universal design principles for learning to the teaching process are listed as classroom climate, interaction, physical environments, teaching standards, teaching methods, information resources and technology, feedback, and evaluation (Burgstahler, 2015). These performances are based on three basic principles. These principles are, representing the information learned in more than one type, enabling learners to participate in the process through more than one action and expression, and encouraging their participation through more than one method while participating in the process (CAST, 2024).

In a bibliometric study (Özsunkar, 2023), it was observed that the country with the highest number of publications and citations on universal design for learning was the United States of America. It is thought that the reason for this may be the effect of the legal bases in the American education system on changing learning environments. For example, efforts have been made to increase the inclusiveness of learning environments with legal bases such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975; as cited in Zettel and Ballard, 1979) and the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Congress, 2002). The most frequently cited authors on this topic are Sean J. Smith, Dave Edyburn, and Kavita Rao. In their study (Rao et al., 2020), they highlighted that the flexibility of the curriculum in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is its greatest strength; however, this flexibility also poses significant challenges during implementation. For this reason, it can become unclear whether practitioners diversify to differentiate in the education process or to make a proactive application within the framework of UDL (Capp, 2017; Edyburn, 2010; Rao et al., 2020). It is essential to inform practitioners about the subject and to gather their perspectives to manage the process according to the UDL framework. In this context, the views of field experts on universal design for learning were examined. Whether the participants had a common view on the issue and the reasons for choosing extreme statements were investigated within the framework of various variables. To guide this inquiry, the following research question was posed: "How do practitioners prioritize and interpret different statements about Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in practice?"

Q method was used in the analysis of the research conducted with mixed methods. The Q method is based on individuals expressing their opinions and thoughts in a priority order and obtaining holistic results by combining the strong features of quantitative and qualitative methods (McKeown & Thomas, 2013). The items in the Q Method form obtained through literature review were prepared by the researcher by taking expert opinion. Qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed by examining the Q string in statistical programs. The items in the Q method should contain positive and negative statements, so the Q method form contains 20 positive and 20 negative statements. The rules specified by Webler et al. (2009) were followed in writing the statements. The views of the participants were analyzed in detail in the string classified as positive, negative, and neutral.

Based on the data to be obtained within the scope of the study, it is expected to determine the factors that involve the most participants in the research. It is expected that the flexibility in the curriculum prepared by adhering to universal design principles in learning using different methods and assessments will be perceived as challenging by field experts (Rao, et al., 2020). It is expected that in-service trainings should be provided on the preparation of flexible programs educators should be supported in this regard, and studies with curriculum design examples should be increased (Hall, 2012). With future studies based on the use of Q methodology, it may be possible to examine the factors that play a role in universal design for learning.

Burgstahler, S. (2015). Universal Design of Instruction (UDI): Definition, Principles, Guidelines, and Examples. https://www.washington.edu/doit/universal-design-instruction-udi-definition-principles-guidelines-and-examples Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21, 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074 CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. Retrieved November, 28, 2024 from https://udlguidelines.cast.org Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize Universal Design for Learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300103 Hall, T. E. (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. Guilford Press. Mace, R. L. (1985). Universal design: Barrier free environments for everyone. Designers West, 33(1), 147–152. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (2013). Q methodology (Vol. 66). Sage publications. Oxford, R. (1992). Who are our students? A synthesis of foreign and second language research on individual differences with implications for instructional practice. TESL Canada Journal, 30-49. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v9i2.602 Özsunkar, Ö. N. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of academic studies on universal design for learning. In E. Güneri Özdemir, G. Bedir, & Ö. N. Özsunkar (Eds.), Educational Research in the 100th Year of the Republic, (pp. 235-251). Turkuazkey Academic Publications. Rao, K., Ok, M. W., Smith, S. J., Evmenova, A. S., & Edyburn, D. (2020). Validation of the UDL Reporting Criteria With Extant UDL Research. Remedial and Special Education, 41(4), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519847755 Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 47-51. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age Universal Design for Learning. ASCD. UNESCO. (2001). Open file on inclusive education: Support materials for managers and administrators. UNESCO. U.S. Congress. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/1 Webler, T., Danielson, S. & Tuler, S. (2009) Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute. Zettel, J. J., & Ballard, J. (1979). The education for all handicapped children act of 1975 PL 94-142: Its history, origins, and concepts. Journal of Education, 161(3), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205747916100303