Inclusive Learning and Educational Equity 5

 Discussion of Findings and Conclusions
With reference to the research questions posed at the beginning, it can be reported 
that the process around a possible implementation of UDL to further school-based 
practices sparked a broader discourse which highlighted the relevance of ongoing 
11 Good Practice in Inclusive Education: Participatory Reinterpretation of Already…

---

308
reflection processes involving students, parents, and teachers, considerations of the 
living environments of children and the need to acknowledge their role in actively 
shaping the provision of teaching and learning environments beyond pre-determined 
learning types, and the stimulation of specific areas of the brain through predeter-
mined sets of tools.
Taking into consideration that no educational approach is without a scientific or 
attitudinal context, it should be noted that the different approaches to providing a 
conducive learning environment, with their specific strengths and weaknesses, can 
be interpreted along a spectrum that enables a reference point for ongoing reflection 
on furthering a more child-centered localized approach to teaching and learning.
With respect to the contrast between UDL and existing teaching practices at 
SZD, which can be referred to as individualized or differentiated instruction (DI), 
further desk research into already existing perspectives on these two approaches has 
been conducted (Ralabate, 
2014
; Griful-Freixenet et al., 
2020
). Ralabate (
2014
, 8) 
stresses that UDL caters for specific predictable contexts, whereas DI can be con-
sidered as catering more toward the individual in promoting responses to spe-
cific needs:
“A key contrast between DI and UDL is that DI emphasizes responding to individual needs, 
whereas UDL emphasizes proactive design of environment and instruction based on pre-
dictable, systematic learner variability.
”
The fusion of the two approaches proved helpful in selecting, reassessing, and 
thus developing specific approaches to teaching and learning at SZD. Drawing from 
the strengths of these and additional approaches to didactics, learning, and teaching 
enables a holistic toolbox for the development of specific individual (or at least 
local) approaches to child-centered learning environments. If SZD’s approaches to 
providing learning are included along a spectrum which includes UDL and DI 
(Fig. 
11.6
), the relevance of contexts beyond the individual as well as the need to 
refer to the reflective power and involvement in decision-making of the students 
themselves can be incorporated.
The interrelatedness or distinction of UDL in contrast to other established 
approaches to didactics need to be studied further in order to broaden its under-
standing and its benefits in specific localized contexts.
Additional factors that need to be addressed in reference to findings from the