This study examines how Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is understood and enacted as Tier 1 instruction in Austrian secondary schools and how it can promote instructional flexibility and equity in increasingly diverse inclusive classrooms. Within this context, UDL is positioned as a universal foundation for classroom support in a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), emphasizing flexible pathways for access, engagement, and success for all learners ⁽CAST, 2023). Despite growing interest, systematic empirical research on UDL implementation and impacts in Austria remains limited, and European evidence on reliable effects is similarly scarce, indicating the need for clearer terminology, stronger practice-research alignment, and sustainable strategies that do not require additional resources. While initiatives such as the Erasmus+ TEP project (2018–2021) have promoted collaboration and teacher training, they do not replace broader, multi-level implementation and evaluation across the system.

The study is guided by three research questions: (1) To what extent is UDL applied as a Tier 1 instructional approach? (2) Which UDL principles—Multiple Means of Engagement, Representation, and Action & Expression—are most frequently used? (3) What barriers limit effective UDL implementation? These questions respond to persistent practice-level challenges reported by pre-service teachers, who often conflate UDL with differentiation and tend to perceive it as a framework mainly for students with disabilities rather than a comprehensive approach for all learners. Accordingly, one core aim is to clarify UDL-related terminology and provide practical, feasible strategies that educators can integrate into everyday instruction. A second aim is to map patterns of use across the three UDL domains and examine whether their application differs in Austrian schools. A third aim is to identify barriers at classroom and system levels that constrain coherent Tier 1 implementation. More broadly, the study seeks to strengthen understanding and uptake of UDL as an inclusive framework that supports learning, instruction, and assessment for all students, not only for those with disabilities.

The rationale for this research emerges from noticeable gaps between theory and practice. Although UDL features in teacher education coursework, empirical knowledge about how it is interpreted and applied in daily practice in Austria is limited; reliance on literature from outside the Austrian context remains common due to the lack of local evidence. The study therefore aims to establish an initial empirical baseline that can inform teacher education, support student research projects, and serve as a foundation for future Bachelor’s and Master’s theses focused on UDL in Austria. By addressing both conceptual clarity and practical implementation, the study seeks to bridge the gap between theoretical discourse and classroom realities and to inform policy and practice aimed at inclusive, flexible, and equitable instruction.

An exploratory mixed-methods design was adopted to capture both breadth and depth of understanding of UDL in Austrian secondary education. The approach prioritizes a practice-oriented perspective on current patterns, perceptions, and barriers reflecting the limited state of empirical research on UDL implementation in Austria. Quantitative component: A survey instrument based on the 2024 CAST UDL Guidelines (Version 3.0) was adapted by simplifying language and adding brief examples to improve clarity and accessibility. The instrument assessed the three UDL principles—Multiple Means of Engagement, Representation, and Action & Expression—using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 4 = strongly disagree), enabling analysis of frequency and intensity of UDL use and comparisons across domains. Data were analyzed using SPSS. Qualitative component: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with eight secondary school teachers working in inclusive schools in Innsbruck. Interviews included brief UDL-aligned open-ended questions, lasted approximately 40 minutes, focusing on experiences and reflections on UDL in everyday practice. Data were analyzed using Thematic Analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase approach. Sample and administration: The sample extended a prior pilot and comprised n=100 participants from the Institute of Teacher Education and School Research at the University of Innsbruck, including Bachelor’s and Master’s students from inclusive and general teacher education programs. Working students responded from their school-based practice; non-working students reflected on recent school experiences. Data were collected for the pilot (n=20) over a summer semester 2025 and completed research (n=100) over winter semester in 2025. The survey was administered during scheduled lectures via Microsoft Forms, with around 20 minutes allocated for completion. Ethical standards were followed; participation was voluntary, and responses were anonymous and used exclusively for research purposes. Hypotheses: The study was guided by three hypotheses—(H1) UDL strategies are applied but not explicitly recognized as UDL; (H2) UDL Multiple ways of engagement, representation and Expression & Action principles are implemented unevenly; and (H3) perceived barriers are primarily related to limited knowledge, practical skills, and school resources.

Findings indicate that UDL is not systematically embedded at the universal (Tier 1) level in everyday classroom practice. Respondents report it is not commonly used and that teachers’ knowledge is limited, pointing to inconsistent uptake and a need for clearer Tier 1 implementation. Participants highlight needs for stronger sense of belonging, and timely, coherent feedback as key universal features not yet systematically embedded. Across UDL domains, Representation is normatively supported but inconsistently enacted: teachers value the use of multiple media and clear, consistent explanations, suggesting awareness of good practice that does not always translate into routine implementation. Action & Expression receives endorsement in principle, yet students’ authentic multimodal expression is often constrained by insufficient assistive technologies. Engagement practices appear least developed, with limited emotional and motivational supports and classroom environments that do not consistently promote belonging. These patterns suggest a more uneven distribution of UDL practices than anticipated and indicate the importance of distinguishing hypothesized expectations from empirically observed classroom realities. Key constraints include scarce funding and material resources, large and diverse classes, and heavy teaching loads that constrain preparation of UDL-aligned materials. By documenting current understandings and practices, the study offers an empirical baseline for Austria that can inform program design, support student research, and guide future investigations into implementation across educational levels. Beyond Austria, the findings contribute to European debates where robust empirical evidence on UDL implementation remains limited. The study’s conceptual clarifications and resource-neutral strategies provide transferable insights for cross-national comparisons, supporting teacher education and professional learning across diverse systems. In this way, the work complements existing initiatives while addressing the broader need for systematic, practice-aligned research across Europe.

Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Dalton-Puffer, C., Heaney, H., Katzinger, L., & Smit, U. (2023). CLIL for all? An exploratory study of reported pedagogical practices in Austrian secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(9), 1050–1065. Galkienė, A., & Monkevičienė, O. (Eds.). (2021). Improving Inclusive Education through Universal Design for Learning. Springer. European Commission. (2023). Inclusive education in the EU: Ensuring equal opportunities for all learners. Brussels: European Commission. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2020, September 15). Country information for Austria – Legislation and policy. Retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/country-information/austria Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research. (n.d.). Integrative School / School of Special Needs. Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection. (n.d.). UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Statistics Austria. (2024, December 3). Number of pupils increased again in 2023/24 – Growth mainly due to immigration [Press release 13 480-246/24]. Statistics Austria. Hoffmann, T., Buchner, T., Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., Hofmann, M., & Proyer, M. (2025). Evaluierung der Vergabepraxis des sonderpädagogischen Förderbedarfs (SPF) in Österreich: Diskussion der zentralen Ergebnisse. Research Gate. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., Quanbeck, M., Bowman, J. A., & Riegelman, A. (2024). Universal design and K-12 academic assessments: A scoping review of the literature (NCEO Report 442). National Center on Educational Outcomes. Almeqdad et al. (2023). The effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 120, 103935. Timuș, N., Bartlett, M. E., Bartlett, J. E., Ehrlich, S., & Babutsidze, Z. (2024). Fostering inclusive higher education through universal design for learning and inclusive pedagogy – EU and US faculty perceptions. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(2), 473–487. Phelan, D., Maguire, H., & Finnegan, C. (2025). Scoping review of Universal Design for Learning principles embedded in subjects in secondary education. European Journal of Education, 60(1), e70016. Ewe, L. P., & Galvin, T. (2023). Universal Design for Learning across formal school structures in Europe—A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(9), 867. Devitt, A., al. (2025). A systematic literature review on the effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning in second-level education. The International Journal of Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning 1(1). Zhang, L., Carter, R. A., Greene, J. A., & Bernacki, M. L. (2024). Unraveling challenges with the implementation of Universal Design for Learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 35.