This paper draws on a larger, ongoing action research project investigating how Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CAST, 2018; Tobin & Behling, 2018) can be applied as a pedagogical and didactic framework to strengthen inclusion in vocational education, using the Danish Pedagogical Assistant Program (PAU) as a case. Across Europe, vocational education programs are characterized by increasing student diversity, including higher proportions of students with disabilities. In Denmark, vocational education has experienced the steepest rise in students requiring special educational support, particularly related to dyslexia, ADHD, and autism (EVA, 2023). While individualized support schemes reduce dropout risks for students who receive them, many students remain unserved due to lack of diagnosis or awareness, underscoring the need for inclusive approaches embedded in everyday teaching practice.

Despite strong political and legal commitments to inclusive education—reflected in the Salamanca Statement (1994) and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)—teachers and support staff in vocational education often lack structured pedagogical tools for designing inclusive learning environments (VIVE, 2024). Responsibility for inclusion has largely been placed on individual teachers, and vocational education has not historically been subject to the same pedagogical competence requirements as other upper secondary or higher education programs.

The broader project addresses this gap by examining UDL as a structured approach to inclusive pedagogy. UDL is an internationally recognized framework that conceptualizes learner diversity as the norm rather than the exception and emphasizes proactive instructional design through multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression. While UDL has been extensively researched in primary and higher education, empirical research in vocational education—particularly in Nordic and European contexts—remains limited. The study is theoretically informed by inclusive and resource-oriented perspectives on learning and participation, which conceptualize inclusion as a contextual and relational process rather than an individual deficit (Ringø & Falster, 2025).

The overall project is guided by three research questions:

Research Question 1:
How can a UDL-focused intervention in the Pedagogical Assistants Education Program contribute to enhanced knowledge and competencies in inclusive pedagogy among vocational teachers and SPS counsellors?

Research Question 2:
How do students enrolled in the Pedagogical Assistants Education Program evaluate opportunities for participation in UDL-designed learning environments?

Research Question 3:
What specific opportunities and challenges arise in the implementation of UDL-designed learning environments in a vocational school context?

The focus of this paper presentation is Research Question 1. Drawing on preliminary qualitative data from teachers and SPS counsellors, the paper explores early professional reflections on UDL, emerging understandings of inclusive pedagogy, and perceived possibilities and challenges in applying UDL within vocational teaching. Student perspectives and broader implementation conditions are part of the larger project but fall outside the empirical scope of this paper.

By focusing on professional learning and pedagogical sense-making, the paper contributes empirically to European discussions on teacher professionalism, inclusive pedagogy, and the translation of international inclusion frameworks into vocational education practice.

The larger project is grounded in action research, selected for its capacity to combine systematic knowledge production with the development of educational practice (Reason & Bradbury, 2013). Rather than adopting a top-down approach, the research builds on teachers’ and SPS counsellors’ experiences, focusing on concrete challenges in creating inclusive teaching environments. Action research is well established within educational research (Hiim, 2015; Laudonia & Elks, 2018) and has proven particularly relevant in vocational education contexts (Kamstrup & Brodersen, 2024). The methodology follows iterative cycles of planning, action, observation, and reflection (Miedijensky & Sasson, 2020). Participants analyze their teaching practices through the lens of Universal Design for Learning, design and implement small-scale UDL-informed interventions, and engage in collaborative reflection with researchers. This close researcher–practitioner collaboration supports professional development while generating empirical insights into how inclusive pedagogy is understood and enacted in vocational education. The pilot is conducted across three PAU locations and involves 15–24 teachers and 5 SPS counsellors, alongside student participants. However, the data presented in this paper draw exclusively on qualitative material generated with teachers and SPS counsellors, including semi-structured interviews, reflective activities, and documentation from professional development workshops and early intervention planning. Qualitative data are analyzed thematically using a combination of inductive coding and deductive coding aligned with UDL’s core principles (engagement, representation, and action/expression). Analysis focuses on participants’ emerging understandings of inclusive pedagogy, perceived changes in professional competence, and reflections on opportunities and constraints in applying UDL within vocational teaching.

At the time of the conference, data collection will be in its early stages, and the findings presented will therefore be preliminary, exploratory, and primarily descriptive. Drawing on initial interviews and early professional development activities, the paper is expected to highlight how teachers and SPS counsellors begin to make sense of UDL as a framework for inclusive pedagogy. Preliminary reflections suggest that participants may develop increased awareness of how instructional design choices—such as modes of engagement, representation, and expression—relate to student participation and learning. A key anticipated finding concerns the professional translation of UDL into a vocational education context. While UDL has been widely developed in more scholastic educational settings, its application in vocational education—where learning is closely tied to practice, professional identity, and workplace relevance—may prove challenging. Teachers and counsellors may experience tensions between UDL principles and existing curricular demands, assessment practices, and time constraints. These tensions are expected to generate important insights into the professional and structural conditions required for meaningful implementation. The paper acknowledges that early reflections may reflect initial engagement rather than sustained pedagogical change, and that enthusiasm for UDL does not automatically translate into long-term transformation of practice. Nevertheless, these preliminary insights are valuable precisely because they illuminate how vocational educators interpret, negotiate, and adapt an internationally recognized inclusion framework in their own context. In doing so, the paper contributes to understanding what may be needed to successfully draw on UDL in vocational education and informs future phases of the larger project.

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines, version 2.2. Retrieved August 28, 2025. CAST Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Evalueringsinstitut, EVA. [Report] Viden om frafald og trivsel på erhvervsuddannelserne Hiim, H. (2015). Educational action research and the development of professional teacher knowledge. In Action research for democracy (pp. 147-161). Routledge. Kamstrup, A. K., & Brodersen, A. H. (2024). Gode overgange mellem FGU og EUD: Evaluering af et pilotprojekt. Københavns Professionshøjskole. https://fgu.dk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/evalueringsrapport-gode-overgange-mellem-fgu-og-eud-1.pdf Laudonia, I., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Abels, S. & Eilks, I. (2018). Action research in science education – an analytical review of the literature, Educational Action Research, 26(3), 480-495, OI: 10.1080/09650792.2017.1358198 Miedijensky, S., & Sasson, I. (2020). Participatory action research as a way to innovate mathematics and science teaching, teachers’ professional development perceptions and performances. Educational Action Research, 30(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1802320 Ringø, P., & Falster, E. S. (2025). Beyond the buzzword: unpacking ‘Special needs’ in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 27(1), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.1060 Reason, P. & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2013). The Sage handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Second edition. Sage. Salamancaerklæringen (1994). Salamanca Erklæringen og Handlingsprogrammet for Specialundervisning. Retrieved August 31, 2025. Salamanca Erklæringen Tobin, T. J., & Behling, K. T. (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal Design for Learning in higher education. Virginia University Press. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (A/RES/61/106). https://www.refworld.org/legal/agreements/unga/2006/en/90142 [accessed 27 August 2025]. VIVE (2023). Frafald på erhvervsuddannelserne – En undersøgelse af frafaldsmønstre, frafaldsårsager og tiltag til fastholdelse. [Report]. Frafald på erhvervsuddannelserne - En undersøgelse af frafaldsmønstre, frafaldsårsager og tiltag til fastholdelse