Universal design for learning based on augmented reality to enhance spatial and cognitive engagement of neurodivergent students in an inclusive classroom environment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61511/ajcsee.v4i1.2026.3652Keywords:
augmented reality, cognitive engagement, inclusive education, neurodivergent students, universal design for learningAbstract
Background: Inclusive education requires learning approaches that can accommodate the diverse cognitive, behavioral, and sensory needs of neurodivergent students, particularly learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). However, conventional classroom instruction often relies on verbal explanation and two-dimensional visual materials, which may limit students’ spatial understanding, sustained attention, memory retention, and active participation. Although Augmented Reality (AR) has been increasingly applied in educational settings to enhance visualization and interactivity, its integration with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles to support neurodivergent students in inclusive classrooms remains insufficiently explored. This study investigates the implementation of a UDL-based AR learning model to enhance spatial and cognitive engagement among students with ASD and ADHD in an inclusive classroom environment. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was employed by combining pretest–posttest assessment, classroom observation, and semi-structured teacher interviews. The participants consisted of ten neurodivergent students, including five students with ASD and five students with ADHD, and two inclusive classroom teachers. Findings: Quantitative findings showed improvements across five indicators: spatial recognition, spatial reasoning, cognitive focus, memory retention, and problem-solving accuracy. The highest improvement was found in spatial recognition, followed by problem-solving accuracy and spatial reasoning. Qualitative findings indicated that AR–UDL supported differentiated instruction, increased students’ attention, and encouraged more active interaction during learning activities. However, teachers also reported challenges related to classroom management, students’ overexcitement, and technical readiness. Conclusion: These findings suggest that AR–UDL can serve as a practical and inclusive pedagogical model for supporting neurodivergent learners, especially when implemented with appropriate teacher guidance, ethical consideration, and contextual adaptation. Novelty/Originality of this article: This study contributes empirical evidence to the development of technology-supported inclusive education and provides a foundation for future research involving larger samples, longer intervention periods, and comparative experimental designs.
References
Ahmed, A., Hayes, M. J., & Joorabchi, A. (2025). Assessing student engagement: A machine learning approach to qualitative analysis of institutional effectiveness. Future Internet, 17(10), Article 453. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi17100453
Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903
Al-Khresheh, M. H., Alshammari, S. R., & Almayez, M. (2025). Digital integration in the Saudi ELT context: A supervisory lens on teachers’ technological efficacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1), Article 2526011. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2526011
Almeqdad, Q. I., Alquraan, M. F., Mohaidat, M. A., Al-Makahleh, A. A., & Al-Masaeed, S. (2023). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10(1), Article 2218191. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2218191
Angrist, N., & Dercon, S. (2024). Understanding gaps between policy and practice. What Works Hub for Global Education Working Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-WhatWorksHubforGlobalEducation-WP_2024/004
Baluyot, L. T. (2024). Challenges and opportunities in implementing inclusive education. International Multidisciplinary Journal of Research for Innovation, Sustainability, and Excellence, 1(4), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10967372
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chris, B., & Stephanie, P. (2024). Neurodiversity in classroom dynamics: Inclusive pedagogical frameworks for neurodivergent student engagement. Global Synthesis in Education Journal, 2(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.61667/xehj4936
Cook, A. (2024). Conceptualisations of neurodiversity and barriers to inclusive pedagogy in schools: A perspective article. British Journal of Special Education, 627–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12656
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
Floyd, K. K., Jeffs, T., & Puckett, K. S. (2024). Assistive technology and universal design for learning: Toolkits for inclusive instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/22000259.2026.2716478
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
Hernández-Torrano, D., Somerton, J., & Helmer, J. (2020). Mapping research on inclusive education since the Salamanca Statement: A bibliometric review of the literature over 25 years. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1747555
Jardinez, M. J., & Natividad, L. R. (2024). The advantages and challenges of inclusive education: Striving for equity in the Classroom. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 12, 57-65. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v12i2.7182
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Karynbaeva, O. V., Shapovalova, O. E., & Shklyar, N. V. (2021). Inclusive education. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.06.03.54
Kyza, E. A., & Georgiou, Y. (2018). Scaffolding augmented reality inquiry learning: The design and investigation of the TraceReaders location-based augmented reality platform. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1458039
Latif, W. B., Yasin, I. M. Y., Rahaman, M. A., Forid, M. S., Islam, M. N., & Hossain, M. Z. (2024). Impact of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) on interactive learning systems. Pacific Journal of Advanced Engineering Innovations, 1(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.70818/pjaei.2024.v01i01.016
Liasidou, A. (2016). Disabling discourses and human rights law: A case study based on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.936928
McKay, L. (2016). Beginning teachers and inclusive education: Frustrations, dilemmas and growth. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(4), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1081635
UN. (2007). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Priyadharsini, V., & Mary, R. S. (2024). Universal design for learning (UDL) in inclusive education: Accelerating learning for all. Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities, 11(4), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.34293/sijash.v11i4.7489
Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-based lessons. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016680688
Sewell, A., Kennett, A., & Pugh, V. (2022). Universal design for learning as a theory of inclusive practice for use by educational psychologists. Educational Psychology in Practice, 38(4), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2022.2111677
Shemy, I. E., Jaccheri, L., Giannakos, M., & Vulchanova, M. (2024). Augmented reality-enhanced language learning for children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic literature review. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2304607
Szentirmai, A. B., & Murano, P. (2024). Enhancing learning through universally designed augmented reality: A comparative study of augmented and traditional learning materials. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 0, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI241044
Tian, X., & Ironsi, C. S. (2025). Examining the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning outcomes. Science report. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20833-w
Yoon, S. A., Anderson, E., Koehler-Yom, J., Klopfer, E., Sheldon, J., Wendel, D., & Schoenfeld, I. (2018). How augmented reality, textual, and collaborative scaffolds work synergistically to improve learning in a science museum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1386645
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Aulia Dea Fadzila, Hilal Darmawan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.













