By Dr Erin Leif, Prof Umesh Sharma, and Jayde de Bondt
Posted Tuesday 8 July, 2025

Inclusive teaching is not just a moral obligation – it is a pedagogical necessity that enhances the quality of education for all students. Research consistently demonstrates that when students feel a sense of belonging and see their identities reflected in the learning environment, they are more likely to engage deeply with course content, persist through challenges, and achieve stronger academic outcomes (Allen et al., 2024; Leif et al., 2024). Inclusive teaching moves beyond mere accommodation; it actively removes barriers that might otherwise prevent students from reaching their potential (Bracken & Novak, 2019).

Inclusive teaching is not just a moral obligation – it is a pedagogical necessity that enhances the quality of education for all students

For educators, adopting inclusive practices fosters a more dynamic and responsive teaching environment (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). When we design learning experiences that account for diverse perspectives and needs, we can create classrooms where students are more engaged, motivated, and willing to take intellectual risks. This, in turn, may lead to richer discussions, more innovative problem-solving, and a more fulfilling teaching experience (Ambrose et al., 2010). Furthermore, inclusive teaching does not lower academic standards – it strengthens them by ensuring that all students, regardless of background or ability, have equitable opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills (Cadet et al., 2024).

The challenge, then, is not whether to embrace inclusive teaching – failing to do so perpetuates exclusionary practices that limit student potential – but how to do so in ways that are achievable, sustainable, and meaningful. What strategies best support the diverse needs of students without compromising the rigour of academic learning? How can we foster inclusivity while encouraging critical thinking and debate? By confronting these questions, we can move toward a model of university education that is not only more just but also more effective for everyone involved.

The Challenges of Embedding Inclusive Teaching

Although the advantages of inclusive teaching are well documented, embedding such practices and pedagogies into university practice remains a complex endeavour (Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2021). Research shows that educators are generally committed to inclusivity, yet many feel uncertain about how to begin or how to enact changes that are both meaningful and sustainable (Svendby, 2024). We have encountered this tension in our own teaching. We strive to create learning environments that welcome all students, but often grappling with questions like: Which strategies will work best in this context? or How do we know if we’re truly reaching every learner?

Students, too, often express appreciation for inclusive practices, such as the use of flexible assessment options, scaffolded tasks, or diverse materials that reflect a range of perspectives. However, some resist changes that depart from more traditional academic norms. For example, in our teaching, when we have students invited to co-construct assessment rubrics or participate in reflective goal-setting, a few have questioned the legitimacy of these approaches, perceiving them as “less rigorous” than standard practices. Others have expressed discomfort with active learning strategies that require higher levels of peer interaction or self-direction, such as collaborative problem-solving tasks. These moments of resistance highlight the emotional and cognitive shifts involved in moving toward inclusive pedagogies – not just for educators, but for learners as well.

Universal Design for Learning: A Practical Starting Point

One effective framework for inclusive teaching that we have used in our own practice is Universal Design for Learning (UDL). We define UDL as a proactive planning framework that helps educators identify and remove barriers to student learning and participation when developing learning experiences, learning materials, and assessments. UDL supports the development of inclusive learning experiences by encouraging the use of a range of teaching strategies to support all learners. By applying UDL principles, educators can ensure that all students have equitable opportunities to access and engage in higher education. 

• Multiple means of engagement – Providing flexible ways for students to engage with the material and participate actively in the learning process
• Multiple means of representation – Offering information in flexible formats to support diverse learning needs.
• Multiple means of action and expression – Allowing students flexible ways to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

This approach differs from debunked “learning styles” theories; instead, it focuses on accessibility and reducing barriers, rather than catering to presumed personal preferences. By integrating these principles, educators can proactively design courses that reduce barriers to learning while maintaining high expectations for all students. 

In a UDL-informed approach, flexibility does not mean a lack of structure or free choice of materials and activities. Instead, the structure is provided by clear, aligned learning objectives. The flexibility comes in how students reach those objectives. Constructive alignment ensures that every assessment, every activity, and every resource is chosen or adapted with purpose – designed to help all students access learning in ways that work for them and achieve success on meaningful learning goals.

In our teaching, we have embedded the principles of UDL by providing learning materials in multiple formats, such as textbook readings, video lectures, case studies, and visual summaries, ensuring accessibility for diverse learners. Our assessments are designed to offer flexibility, allowing students to demonstrate their understanding in various ways. Additionally, we provide choices in how students engage with course content, whether through on-campus workshops, online tutorials, or facilitated asynchronous Moodle activities, fostering a more inclusive and responsive learning environment.

However, implementing UDL is not without its challenges. Some students may initially struggle with the flexibility it offers, preferring more traditional, structured approaches where expectations feel clearer and more familiar. We have had students express uncertainty about how to navigate multiple engagement pathways, feeling overwhelmed by the range of choices available to them. Others have questioned whether alternative assessment options provide the same level of academic rigour, reflecting long-held assumptions about what “real” learning should look like.

Others have questioned whether alternative assessment options provide the same level of academic rigour, reflecting long-held assumptions about what “real” learning should look like

As educators, we continue to explore ways to support students in developing the confidence and self-regulation skills needed to become self-directed learners. How do we guide students in making informed choices about their learning pathways? How can we scaffold decision-making so that flexibility feels empowering rather than overwhelming? These are ongoing questions that challenge us to refine our approach and ensure that inclusivity does not become an additional burden, but rather a meaningful support for all learners.

Including Student Voice in Inclusive Teaching

A truly inclusive learning environment values student voice as an essential component. Incorporating student perspectives can enhance the relevance and effectiveness of teaching strategies while fostering a greater sense of belonging and ownership among learners.

Inclusive teaching ensures that instructional approaches are responsive to students’ needs and lived experiences, creating a learning environment that acknowledges and values diversity. By fostering student agency, it empowers learners to take an active role in shaping their educational experiences, promoting engagement and a sense of ownership. Additionally, it helps educators identify and address barriers that may not be immediately visible, allowing for more equitable and supportive learning opportunities for all students.

So how can educators incorporate student voice in meaningful ways? Some strategies we have found useful include:

• Soliciting feedback regularly – Using mid-semester surveys, anonymous feedback forms, or student panels to gather insights.
• Engaging in co-design – Involving students in developing course content, assessment criteria, or learning activities.
• Fostering open dialogue – Creating spaces for students to share their perspectives and experiences without fear of judgment or penalty.

In our own teaching, we have experimented with different ways to centre student voices, from co-developing assessment rubrics to incorporating student-led discussions. 

There Is No Single “Correct” Approach to Inclusive Teaching

Engaging meaningfully with the principles of inclusive teaching is not a linear or prescriptive process. Rather, it is dynamic, iterative, and constantly evolving. It involves cycles of reflection, unlearning, and learning. Over time, these cycles help shape more equitable and supportive learning experiences, but they are rarely without discomfort or missteps.

When I (Erin) first began experimenting with inclusive learning and teaching in a primarily asynchronous online learning environment, I was enthusiastic but unsure. I understood theories and values underpinning multiple approaches, such as Universal Design for Learning, differentiated instruction, and culturally responsive pedagogy, but translating these into concrete, everyday decisions in my teaching practice was less straightforward. I remember redesigning a unit assessment so students could choose between multiple case studies to represent the diversity of real world practice challenges. While some students embraced the flexibility, others were anxious about the lack of a single ‘correct’ format. One even asked, “How will I know I’m doing it right if we’re all doing something different?” That moment revealed a tension I hadn’t anticipated: that offering choice could be empowering for some students, but unsettling for others who felt more secure within traditional structures.

Another early challenge I faced was figuring out how to meaningfully incorporate student voice in a primarily asynchronous learning environment. Without the immediacy of live discussions or in-person feedback, it was easy for the course to become overly structured and static, designed for students but not with them. To shift this dynamic, I invited students to contribute to shaping aspects of the learning experience, such as nominating weekly discussion topics, suggesting additional readings or media, and sharing preferences for the types of feedback they found most helpful.

While the intention was to create a more responsive and democratic space, the process proved more complex than I anticipated. Student participation in these invitations was uneven. Some engaged enthusiastically, while others remained silent or uncertain about whether their contributions would genuinely influence the unit. I realised I needed to be more explicit about how student input would be used and to visibly act on their suggestions to build trust. This experience pushed me to confront my own assumptions about expertise and control in online teaching. It also reminded me that fostering inclusion, especially in asynchronous settings, often requires letting go of tight planning in favour of more flexible, iterative design that evolves in response to student input, even when that input is unpredictable or incomplete.

These experiences, and many like them, have taught me that inclusive teaching is as much about mindset as it is about method (Sharma, 2025). It requires an ongoing willingness to listen, adapt, and persist, even when outcomes are uncertain or progress feels slow. It’s about working with principles that are aspirational – not always achievable in every moment, but essential values that guide our practice. Some of the principles that continue to shape and challenge my teaching include:

• Ensuring equitable access by proactively identifying and removing barriers, and designing learning experiences that anticipate and embrace a wide range of student strengths, needs, and identities.
• Balancing scaffolding with autonomy so that students are supported in their learning without having their agency diminished.
• Fostering a culture of openness where diverse perspectives are welcomed and students feel safe to take intellectual and personal risks.
• Embedding inclusivity into assessment in ways that support authentic engagement and give students multiple avenues to demonstrate their learning.
• Recognising and responding to resistance, in ourselves and our students, not as failure, but as a signal to pause, reflect, and deepen our understanding.

Rather than treating inclusivity as an isolated set of strategies, we must view it as an ongoing, evolving process that is embedded into all aspects of teaching. This includes curriculum design, assessment methods, student interactions, and classroom dynamics. For us, this has meant regularly reflecting on our own biases and assumptions, seeking student feedback, and being willing to adjust our approaches when needed.

Inclusive teaching is complex. However, if we do not actively work toward creating learning environments where all students feel seen, valued, and supported, we risk perpetuating exclusionary practices that limit student potential. Our challenge as educators is to navigate this complexity with care, reflection, and a commitment to continuous improvement. We may not have all the answers, but by engaging in ongoing dialogue, seeking student input, and continuously refining our approaches, we take meaningful steps toward creating a truly inclusive university context.

References

Allen, K. A., Slaten, C., Hong, S., Lan, M., Craig, H., May, F., & Counted, V. (2024). Belonging in Higher Education: A Twenty Year Systematic Review. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(05).

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

Bracken, S., & Novak, K. (Eds.). (2019). Transforming higher education through universal design for learning: An international perspective. Routledge.

Cadet, F., Weisfeld‐Spolter, S., & Yurova, Y. V. (2024). Breaking barriers: Reducing inequality in higher education by understanding and addressing diverse student needs. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(3), 1202-1220.

CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. Retrieved from https://udlguidelines.cast.org 

Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828.

Grupp, L. L. (2019). Intentional Pedagogy: Setting the Stage for Enhanced Teaching and Learning. The Journal for Research and Practice in College Teaching, 4(1), 110-123.

Leif, E., McLean, K., Subban, P., & Grove, C. (2024). Inclusion, Accessibility, and Collaboration: Shared Values in the Australian University Classroom. In Worldviews and Values in Higher Education (pp. 185-197). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Sharma, U. (2025). Are We Preparing Teachers to Include or Exclude?. In Conversations and Key Debates on Inclusive and Special Education (pp. 109-118). Routledge.

Stentiford, L., & Koutsouris, G. (2021). What are inclusive pedagogies in higher education? A systematic scoping review. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2245-2261.

Svendby, R. B. (2024). Inclusive Teaching in Higher Education: Challenges of Diversity in Learning Situations from the Lecturer Perspective. Social Sciences, 13(3), 140.