Transforming higher education: a systematic review of faculty training in UDL and its benefits

Teaching in Higher Education Critical Perspectives ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cthe20 Transforming higher education: a systematic review of faculty training in UDL and its benefits Anabel Moriña, Rafael Carballo & Ana Doménech To cite this article: Anabel Moriña, Rafael Carballo & Ana Doménech (24 Feb 2025): Transforming higher education: a systematic review of faculty training in UDL and its benefits, Teaching in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2025.2465994 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2465994 © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group View supplementary material Published online: 24 Feb 2025. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cthe20 Transforming higher education: a systematic review of faculty training in UDL and its benefits Anabel Moriña a , Rafael Carballo a and Ana Doménech b a Departamento de Didáctica y Organización Educativa, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain; b Departamento de Didáctica, Universidad de Cádiz, Puerto Real, Spain ABSTRACT This paper provides a systematic review of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in the university context, focusing on two main themes: faculty training and the benefits of UDL for students. A total of 20 studies involving 5,656 participants (363 faculty members and 5,293 students) were identified, addressing how the implementation of UDL and its impact on students can be enhanced through appropriate faculty training. The findings suggest that specific training in UDL increases teaching competence and promotes inclusive and effective pedagogical practices. Additionally, the effectiveness of UDL in students’ academic experiences was analyzed, demonstrating that UDLbased pedagogical approaches improve learning, accessibility, and participation for all students, including those with disabilities. This study highlights the importance of integrating UDL into faculty training and its positive impact on the university learning environment. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 8 July 2024 Accepted 21 January 2025 KEYWORDS Universal design for learning; higher education; faculty training; benefits Introduction Inclusive education has emerged as an essential component in creating fair, equitable, and accessible educational systems for all students, without exception (UNESCO 2021). Inclusion drives transformative changes that promote learning and participation, acting as an antidote to exclusionary practices against the most vulnerable groups (Liasidou and Liasidou 2023). The context of higher education (HE) is attracting an increasing number of students from diverse backgrounds (Makuve 2024). This places a responsibility on universities to examine and modify their policies, cultures, and practices to promote inclusion and diversity. Faculty members must not only address ‘equal opportunities’ for all learners but also enable educational justice for all (Lindner and Schwab 2020). To achieve inclusive education, it is necessary to ensure all learners’ presence, participation, and achievement (Ainscow 2020). In addition, the student body’s diversity must be considered © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. CONTACT Rafael Carballo [email protected] Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2465994. TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2465994 broadly as an enriching element, and learning options for all learners must be offered from the outset (Stentiford and Koutsouris 2021). In this scenario, inclusive teaching and learning are fundamental to designing and developing pedagogies, curricula, and assessments that are meaningful and accessible to all students (Hitch, Macfarlane, and Nihill 2015). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) represents a practical educational approach for effectively implementing inclusive education in HE (Davies, Schelly, and Spooner 2013; Liasidou 2014; Schelly, Davies, and Spooner 2011). There are different approaches for implementing an inclusive education based on equitable practices (inclusive design, co-design, design justice, participatory design), or approaches emerging from Universal Design (Universal Design for Learning; Universal Instructional Design; Universal Design for Instruction). However, each approach has its particularities. In the case of UDL, it is a structured approach with principles and guidelines that differentiate it from others. UDL aims to create a more accessible learning environment for an increasingly diverse student body, moving away from the traditional ‘one-size-fits-all’ model and reducing the need for specific adaptations for certain student profiles (Black, Weinberg, and Brodwin 2014; Hills, Overend, and Hildebrandt 2022). As HE institutions move towards greater inclusion, UDL offers a practical roadmap, promoting a learning environment that respects and values diversity in all its forms (Healy, Banks, and Ryder 2023; Hromalik et al. 2024). However, its implementation is challenging, particularly regarding the training of faculty members to facilitate its use and ensure its long-term sustainability. While some authors acknowledge its benefits (Barrera and Moliner 2023), others question its effectiveness, arguing that there is insufficient empirical evidence of the advantages of this approach (Creaven 2024). Therefore, this systematic review aims to explore how faculty members are trained in UDL, the impact it has on their teaching practices, and the extent to which UDL is effective for students. Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education Based on the premise that student diversity is the norm rather than the exception, UDL aims to create curricula that are flexible and accessible from the outset (CASP 2018; Hromalik et al. 2024). This involves designing instructional materials, content, assessments, and learning environments that consider the needs and capabilities of all students, thereby facilitating equitable participation. UDL posits that a single method is ineffective in meeting all students’ needs; therefore, it is necessary to offer multiple pathways to achieve educational goals (Gadsden and Goegan 2023). With an emphasis on diversity, inclusion, and technology, UDL has the potential to address pressing issues in higher education such as low persistence, retention, and completion rates (Healy, Banks, and Ryder 2023). Although there are many reasons for dropping out of university, a significant one is that teaching processes make learning challenging, especially for students with disabilities. Aspects such as flexibility and accessibility in teaching, the use of participatory methods or opportunities for establishing good relationships with faculty members contribute to the retention of students with disabilities at the university (Snijders et al. 2018). Therefore, it is claimed that improving inclusive practices has a direct impact on university success (McKinney and Swartz 2022). 2 A. MORIÑA ET AL. One of the most notable benefits of UDL is its ability to accommodate student variability by offering multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression. The first principle involves understanding why students want to learn, what motivates them, and why they are interested in the content being taught (Gadsden and Goegan 2023). Implementing this principle is most challenging (Fovet 2020; Gadsden and Goegan 2023). Educators should aim to develop a student-centered teaching approach. In this sense, UDL increasingly aligns with critical pedagogies, which hold that teaching and learning should help students move from passive to active participation and offer them meaningful and critically oriented experiences. This often entails a paradigm shift where the meaning and importance of individual realities are acknowledged through the collective construction of knowledge (Freire 2005; Oliveira et al. 2024). In this context, participatory methodologies play a fundamental role (Fovet 2021). The principle of multiple means of representation emphasizes the importance of presenting information in different formats to cater to the diversity of ways students perceive and understand the content. For example, students exhibit different channels of information reception (Bandler and Grinder 1982) – visual, auditory and kinesthetic. In turn, these ways of integrating and processing information are intermingled with a variety of contextual factors and determinants that influence the learning process, thus obtaining different rhythms and learning needs that must be addressed in the classroom (Valencia et al. 2018). As a result, some students may benefit more from written texts, while others may better comprehend through visual or auditory media. Therefore, it is essential to use varied sources and resources. UDL also promotes multiple means of action and expression, involving diversification in assessment and fostering a profound pedagogical transformation. This means that students should not assume a passive role but should be offered flexibility in how they contribute to the content and development of the course (Barrera and Moliner 2023; Fovet 2020). Numerous authors have concluded that UDL, initially designed for students with disabilities, is beneficial for the learning of all students (Behling and Posey 2023; Black, Weinberg, and Brodwin 2014; Fovet 2020). It allows for the inclusion of all students by providing a set of principles and guidelines to develop curricula and pedagogy that achieve this goal. Barrera and Moliner (2023) highlight that participants in their study feel more engaged when faculty members consider their opinions and value their efforts. In the case of disability, this approach reduces the need to disclose it by acting proactively and minimising the need for accommodations, such as extra time on exams or the adaptation of materials (Behling and Posey 2023; Healy, Banks, and Ryder 2023; Spaeth and Pearson 2023). Despite these benefits, UDL is not an educational approach free of criticism. Some concerns lie in the possibility of inadvertently marginalizing students with disabilities by focusing on meeting the needs of all learners while avoiding reference to disability. Creaven (2024) argues that ‘until the sensory and social needs of disabled students are met, instructional approaches like UDL cannot provide an equitable learning experience for many disabled students’ (1). In this regard, Dolmage (2015) warned that, while the ‘all learners’ approach of UDL is well-intentioned, avoiding reference to ‘disability’ reduces its potential as a valued identity. Other critical points about the UDL lie in aspects such as lack of research support and evidence for effectiveness, inadequate operationalization, TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3 overemphasis on diversity in learning, overemphasis on matching instruction to diverse ways of learning, or overgeneralized neuroscientific justifications (Boysen 2021). Moreover, Murphy (2021) argues that research designs in studies of UDL approaches do not follow good practice, relying on anecdotes rather than testing their effectiveness. Despite the criticisms, Boysen (2021) acknowledges that UDL guidelines include practices with potential to be effective, so it is necessary to examine this approach carefully and continue to conduct research for better understanding and improvement. In relation to practice, it is important to note that implementing UDL is a process that takes time; redesigning teaching and assessment requires time and should be conceptualised as continuous reflection on practice, in which faculty training is fundamental (Fovet 2021). Faculty Training in UDL as an Essential Ingredient for Inclusion As described, UDL offers a promising framework for creating more inclusive and accessible learning experiences in higher education. However, its practical implementation requires adequate faculty training to overcome current barriers and ensure classroom application. This is because faculty members often find its practical implementation complex (Hromalik et al. 2024). A lack of understanding and proper training on UDL is a significant obstacle. Indeed, the literature has widely noted the need for pedagogical training for university faculty (Redshaw and Deehan 2024; Shaw 2023). Griful-Freixenet et al. (2017) found that many faculty members do not address the learning needs of students with disabilities because they feel unprepared to teach them. Izzo, Murray, and Novak (2008) evaluated faculty perceptions of UDL and found that many faculty members needed to be made aware of UDL and required training to integrate it properly into their instruction. Hills, Overend, and Hildebrandt (2022) highlighted that only 29.3% of faculty reported having a good or complete understanding of UDL. It is, therefore, essential that faculty receive appropriate training to implement UDL effectively. Timuș et al. (2024) argue that higher education institutions must invest in increasing the understanding and practical application of inclusive teaching through professional development. Black, Weinberg, and Brodwin (2014) emphasize that the education and training of educators are vital for reducing barriers and negative attitudes and increasing familiarity with students with disabilities. However, not all training has a significant impact, and some sporadic, short, or optional sessions do not always lead to a change in practices (Hills, Overend, and Hildebrandt 2022). Finally, UDL training appears to have significant positive effects. Hromalik et al. (2024) examined the effects of a four-day UDL training and found that participants increased their knowledge of UDL and were more capable of applying it in their work. In other studies, Schelly, Davies, and Spooner (2011) and Allen and Anderson (2020) found that UDL training resulted in more receptive attitudes toward students with disabilities and the creation of more flexible courses. Davies, Schelly, and Spooner (2013) evaluated a UDL module and found that 92% of faculty participants felt more comfortable addressing students’ needs after completing the training, and 83% had more knowledge of UDL. Although other systematic reviews have addressed UDL in higher education, none conducted to date have focused explicitly on the analysis of university faculty training 4 A. MORIÑA ET AL. in UDL and the benefits of UDL for students. For example, Roberts et al. (2011) conducted an analysis of studies focused on UDL. Although they did not analyze its benefits, they concluded that more research is needed on the impact of UDL. Seok, DaCosta, and Hodges (2018) partially explored the effectiveness of UDL, while Schreffler et al. (2019) focused their review on the STEM area. Gunderson and Cumming (2022) reviewed studies on the uses and benefits of audio podcasts for learning and their relationship with UDL. Finally, other reviews, including the university stage, focused on all educational levels (Almeqdad et al. 2023; Yang et al. 2024). Therefore, we aim to advance the knowledge of UDL in higher education and provide empirical evidence on how UDL faculty training experiences are developed internationally and the benefits this approach has on students’ academic experiences in university. Method This systematic review consisted of seven steps. First, we conducted an in-depth review of other systematic reviews on UDL and HE (Appendix 1). This allowed us to understand what had been previously researched and the main findings so that we could formulate our research questions in the second step. Analyzing this information was fundamental to avoid repeating work done in other reviews and to provide new, relevant, and necessary information to advance the knowledge on UDL. Subsequently, search descriptors were defined, and databases were selected. In the fourth step, inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. Following this, methodological quality criteria were established. Next, data that answered the research questions were extracted after reviewing the papers. Finally, the data were analyzed using a system of categories and codes, and answers to the research questions were obtained. To ensure the quality of the systematic review, the literature search was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Page et al. 2021), as shown in Figure 1 (flowchart). Research Questions The research questions that guided this systematic review were twofold. 1) How are faculty members trained in UDL, and how does this training impact their teaching practices? This first research question encompassed studies that described the design and development of training programs focused on UDL and evaluated their implementation and the effects on teaching practice. 2) What are the benefits of UDL on students’ university experience? This question sought to obtain evidence of the effectiveness of UDL and its impact on students’ university experience. Exploration and Database Search The search was conducted in three databases frequently used in other systematic reviews: Scopus, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Web of Science (WoS). We did not perform a supplementary search because saturation and sufficiency were reached with these databases (Maeda et al. 2022). TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5 The descriptors used in the databases were (Figure 2): (‘UDL’ OR ‘Universal Design for Learning’ OR ‘UD’ OR ‘universal design’) AND (‘university’ OR ‘higher education’ OR ‘college’ OR ‘postsecondary’). The screening was conducted using Covidence, a web-based software for managing reviews. The search was conducted in May 2024 with no time limitations. In Scopus, search terms were sought from titles, abstracts, and keywords. The results were restricted to journal articles published in English in the subject areas of Psychology and Social Sciences, resulting in 363 hits. In ERIC, the search was similar, but restricted to English Language, peer-reviewed journal articles. In this database, 274 hits were found. Finally, in WoS, the search terms were sought in the ‘Topic’ field, which includes Figure 1. Flowchart: screening and selection process. 6 A. MORIÑA ET AL. the title, abstract, and keywords. The WoS index category was restricted to the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), articles, English Language, and research areas (Education Educational Research and Psychology), resulting in 389 hits. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Different search criteria were established to select the articles (Table 1). Figure 2. Searching descriptors. Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Focus of the article .Studies concerning UDL and Higher Education at undergraduate or postgraduate level. .Studies on faculty training in UDL and the impact of training on teaching practice. .Studies on the use of UDL in teaching and learning processes. .Any type of teaching modality. .Studies on UDL at other educational stages. .Studies on other approaches to universal design, such as instructional design of learning or combining different approaches. .Studies focusing on programs for students with intellectual disabilities. .Studies on UDL in universities, but not related to teaching-learning processes and university classrooms (e.g. libraries). .Studies focusing on faculty training needs, opinions and attitudes towards UDL or UDL is not the focus of the article. Type of publication .Peer-reviewed studies. .Journal articles. .Primary studies (quantitative, qualitative or mixed). .Studies published in English. .Full text available. .Non-peer-reviewed studies. .Documents other than articles (book chapters, conference proceedings, reports, theses). .Secondary studies (e.g. reviews and literature analyses). .Studies in languages other than English. .No full text available. Participants .Faculty members. .University students. .Studies whose sample also included multistakeholder experiences, but always included faculty and/or students. .Other actors of the university community but no faculty members and/or students are involved. Clarity of methodology .Studies with full method description: objectives and research questions, sample and recruitment, data collection and data analysis. .Studies with incomplete method. TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7 The initial search identified 1,026 publications, although this number was reduced to 720 after discarding 306 duplicates. All titles and abstracts were read. Based on their content, 633 were eliminated because they needed to meet the criteria, and 87 were included in the next phase. Of the 87, the three researchers, after reading the full texts, agreed to exclude 35 works, agreed to include 19 in the final phase, and 33 presented conflicts. Of these 33, only one work was included after discussion among the researchers, and the rest were excluded. The main conflicts resided in articles that included information on the study topic partially or superficially (studies focused on faculty training needs, opinions, or attitudes towards UDL) or met exclusion criteria not identified in the first reading. Finally, 67 works were excluded, and 20 were included for this systematic review and selected for analysis (in the references, these are marked with an asterisk). Trustworthiness and Relevance of the Studies Included The last phase of the review received particular attention, and the methodological quality of the full texts of the 20 selected studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (2018). After this analysis, all articles were included, as they demonstrated methodological rigor. Data Extraction and Analysis Data from the 20 articles in this systematic review were extracted into a table with seven columns: article reference, country, participants, method and instruments, objectives, and analysis codes of the results (Appendix 2). The research team tested and revised the extraction table through multiple research meetings. This allowed us to systematize the analysis of the publications and facilitate their comparison. Thus, differences and similarities could be identified and examined. In the second data analysis phase, we developed a system of categories and codes (Table 2) to analyze each paper. Table 2. System of categories and codes. Category Code Description 1. Faculty training in UDL 1.1. Training model Methods used to train faculty members in UDL (e.g. workshops, online sessions, mentoring, etc.). 1.2. Training duration Duration of training programs in UDL. 1.3. Training contents Topics and content addressed in UDL training programs. 1.4. Training evaluation How the training evaluation was carried out, what was evaluated. 1.5. Training effectiveness Evaluations and feedback on the effectiveness of UDL training programs. 2. Effectiveness and benefits of UDL for students 2.1. Impact on learning Effects of UDL on students’ academic performance. 2.2. Participation, engagement and motivation Levels of student participation, engagement and motivation in learning through UDL. 2.3. Accessibility and flexibility How UDL enhances accessibility, autonomy and flexibility in learning. 2.4. Reduction of anxiety Effects of UDL on reducing anxiety related to assessment and learning. 8 A. MORIÑA ET AL. improving inclusion in HE. Adequate faculty training and adopting inclusive pedagogical practices are essential to leverage this approach’s benefits fully, thus promoting a more equitable and enriching academic experience for all students. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding Grant RYC2021-032768-I funded by MICIU/AEl/10.13039/501100011033 and by “European UnionNextGenerationEU/PRTR/ Grant 2024/00000549 funded by University of Seville. ORCID Anabel Moriña http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0852-7523 Rafael Carballo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9591-7708 Ana Doménech http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1639-6508 References Ainscow, M. 2020. Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects 49, no. 3–4: 123–134. doi:10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w. Allen, A.G., and S.C. Anderson. 2020. Universal design for learning and instruction: Overcoming barriers facing students with disabilities in colleges and universities. Journal of Education & Social Policy 7, no. 4: 102–110. doi:10.30845/jesp.v7n4p10. Almeqdad, Q.I., A.M. Alodat, M.F. Alquraan, M.A. Mohaidat, and A.K. Al-Makhzoomy. 2023. The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education 10, no. 1: 2218191. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2023.2218191. *Azam, S., K. Goodnough, A. Moghaddam, C. Arnold, S. Penney, G. Young, and K. Maich. 2021. Becoming inclusive teacher educators: Self-study as a professional learning tool. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 15, no. 2: 4. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2021. 150204. Bandler, R., and J. Grinder. 1982. Reframing: Neuro-linguistic programming and the transformation of meaning. Utah: Real People Press. *Barrera, M., and O. Moliner. 2023. ‘How does universal design for learning help me to learn?’ Students with autism spectrum disorder voices in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 49, no. 6: 899–912. doi:10.1080/03075079.2023.2259932. Behling, K., and A. Posey. 2023. “UDL in American colleges and universities: A common pathway to success.” In Handbook of higher education and disability, edited by J.W. Madaus and L.L. Dukes III, 392–405. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Black, R.D., L.A. Weinberg, and M.G. Brodwin. 2014. Universal design for instruction and learning: A pilot study of faculty instructional methods and attitudes related to students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education International 24, no. 1: 48–64. doi:10.5206/ eei.v24i1.7710. Boysen, G.A. 2021. Lessons (not) learned: The troubling similarities between learning styles and universal design for learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 10, no. 2: 207–221. doi:10.1037/stl0000280. *Casebolt, T., and K. Humphrey. 2023. Use of universal design for learning principles in a public health course. Annals of Global Health 89, no. 1: 48. doi:10.5334/aogh.4045. CASP. 2018. “CASP-Critical Appraisal Skills Programme.” CASP-Critical Appraisal Skills Programme website. https://casp-uk.net/. TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 15 Creaven, A.M. 2024. Considering the sensory and social needs of disabled students in higher education: A call to return to the roots of universal design. Policy Futures in Education, 23, no. 1: 259–266. doi:10.1177/14782103241240808. *Davies, P.L., C.L. Schelly, and C.L. Spooner. 2013. Measuring the effectiveness of universal design for learning intervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 26, no. 3: 195–220. *Dean, T., A. Lee-Post, and H. Hapke. 2017. Universal design for learning in teaching large lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education 39, no. 1: 5–16. doi:10.1177/0273475316662104. Dolmage, J. 2015. Universal design: Places to start. Disability Studies Quarterly 35, no. 2: 1–10. doi:10.18061/dsq.v35i2.4632. *Espada-Chavarria, R., R.H. González-Montesino, J.L. López-Bastías, and M. Díaz-Vega. 2023. Universal design for learning and instruction: Effective strategies for inclusive higher education. Education Sciences 13, no. 6: 620. doi:10.3390/educsci13060620. *Fleming, E.C. 2023. UDL for inclusive teaching: Offering choice to increase belonging through technology. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology 12, no. 1: 72–90. doi:10.14434/ jotlt.v12i1.36327. Fovet, F. 2020. Universal design for learning as a tool for inclusion in the higher education classroom: Tips for the next decade of implementation. Education Journal 9, no. 6: 163–172. doi:10. 11648/j.edu.20200906.13. Fovet, F. 2021. Developing an ecological approach to the strategic implementation of UDL in higher education. Journal of Education and Learning 10, no. 4: 27–39. doi:10.5539/jel.v10n4p27. Freire, P. 2005. Pedagogy of the oppressed, 2nd ed. New York: Siglo XXI. Gadsden, A.D., and L.D. Goegan. 2023. Informing inclusive practice in post-secondary environments: Perspectives of post-secondary instructors with learning disabilities. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 14, no. 2: 1–18. doi:10.5206/cjsotlrcacea. 2023.2.8020. *Garrad, T.A., and H. Nolan. 2023. Rethinking higher education unit design: Embedding universal design for learning in online studies. Student Success 14, no. 1: 1–8. doi:10.5204/ssj.2300. Griful-Freixenet, J., K. Struyven, M. Verstichele, and C. Andries. 2017. Higher education students with disabilities speaking out: Perceived barriers and opportunities of the universal design for learning framework. Disability & Society 32, no. 10: 1627–1649. doi:10.1080/09687599.2017. 1365695. Gunderson, J.L., and T.M. Cumming. 2022. Podcasting in higher education as a component of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 60, no. 4: 591–601. doi:10.1080/14703297.2022.2075430. Healy, R., J. Banks, and D. Ryder. 2023. “Universal design for learning policy in tertiary education in Ireland: Are we ready to commit?” In Handbook of higher education and disability, edited by J.W. Madaus and L.L. Dukes III, 392–405. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hills, M., A. Overend, and S. Hildebrandt. 2022. Faculty perspectives on UDL: Exploring bridges and barriers for broader adoption in higher education. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 13, no. 1: 1–21. doi:10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2022.1.13588. Hitch, D., S. Macfarlane, and C. Nihill. 2015. Inclusive pedagogy in Australian universities: A review of current policies and professional development activities. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 6, no. 1: 135–145. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v6i1.254. *Hromalik, C.D., W.N. Myhill, C.A. Ohrazda, N.R. Carr, and S.A. Zumbuhl. 2024. Increasing universal design for learning knowledge and application at a community college: The universal design for learning academy. International Journal of Inclusive Education 28, no. 3: 247–262. doi:10.1080/13603116.2021.1931719. *Hutson, B., and H. Downs. 2015. The college STAR faculty learning community: Promoting learning for all students through faculty collaboration. New Forums Press 29, no. 1: 25–32. *Ismailov, M., and T.K.F. Chiu. 2022. Catering to inclusion and diversity with universal design for learning in synchronous online education: A self-determination theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 819884. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.819884. 16 A. MORIÑA ET AL. Izzo, M.V., A. Murray, and J. Novak. 2008. The faculty perspective on universal design for learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 21, no. 2: 60–72. *Kim, H.J., Y. Kongo, and R. Tirotta-Esposito. 2023. Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion: An examination of diversity-infused faculty professional development programs. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 23, no. 11: 138–153. doi:10.33423/jhetp.v23i11.6224. Liasidou, A. 2014. Critical disability studies and socially just change in higher education. British Journal of Special Education 41, no. 2: 120–135. doi:10.1111/1467-8578.12063. Liasidou, A., and L. Liasidou. 2023. Sunflowers, hidden disabilities and power inequities in higher education: Some critical considerations and implications for disability-inclusive education policy reforms. Power and Education, 1–15. doi:10.1177/17577438231225140. Lindner, K.T., and S. Schwab. 2020. Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–21. doi:10.1080/13603116.2020.1813450. *Lohmann, M.J., K.A. Boothe, A.R. Hathcote, and A. Turpin. 2018. Engaging graduate students in the online learning environment: A Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach to teacher preparation. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research 20, no. 2: 1–23. doi:10.4148/ 2470-6353.1264. Maeda, Y., S. Caskurlu, R.H. Kenney, K. Kozan, and J.C. Richardson. 2022. Moving qualitative synthesis research forward in education: A methodological systematic review. Educational Research Review 35: 100424. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100424. Makuve, N. 2024. Contemporary issues in higher education: Diversity, inclusion, management and governance. African Journal of Education and Practice 10, no. 1: 56–65. doi:10.47604/ajep.2487. *Manly, C.A. 2024. A panel data analysis of using multiple content modalities during adaptive learning activities. Research in Higher Education, 65, no. 6: 1112–1136. doi:10.1007/s11162024-09784-9. McKinney, E.L., and L. Swartz. 2022. Integration into higher education: Experiences of disabled students in South Africa. Studies in Higher Education 47, no. 2: 367–377. doi:10.1080/ 03075079.2020.1750581. Murphy, M. P. 2021. “Belief without evidence? A policy research note on Universal Design for Learning.” Policy Futures in Education 19 (1): 7–12. doi:10.1177/1478210320940206. *Nieminen, J.H., and H.V. Pesonen. 2020. Taking universal design back to its roots: Perspectives on accessibility and identity in undergraduate mathematics. Education Sciences 10, no. 1: 12. doi:10.3390/educsci10010012. Oliveira, M.L.B., J.A. Santos, C.I.P. Oliveira, C.B.M. Monteiro, and I.M.P. Bezerra. 2024. Teachinglearning process in the undergraduate nursing course: Training in the perspective of health promotion from the point of view of Paulo Freire. Journal of Human Growth and Development 34, no. 3: 508–517. doi:10.36311/jhgd.v34.16795. *Olivier, E., and M.C. Potvin. 2021. Faculty development: Reaching every college student with universal design for learning. Journal of Formative Design of Learning 5, no. 2: 106–115. doi:10. 1007/s41686-021-00061-x. *Owenz, M., and L. Cruz. 2023. Addressing student test anxiety through universal design for learning alternative assessments. College Teaching, 1–11. doi:10.1080/87567555.2023.2245945. Page, M.J., J.E. McKenzie, P.M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T.C. Hoffmann, C.D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ 372: 71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71. Redshaw, S., and J. Deehan. 2024. Diversities in higher education: Academics’ inclusive views and reported practices in a regional Australian university. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–18. doi:10.1080/13562517.2024.2306261. *Reyes, C.T., G.A. Lawrie, C.D. Thompson, and S.H. Kyne. 2022. ‘Every little thing that could possibly be provided helps’: Analysis of online first-year chemistry resources using the universal design for learning framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 23: 385–407. doi:10. 1039/D1RP00171J. TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 17 Roberts, K.D., H.J. Park, S. Brown, and B. Cook. 2011. Universal design for instruction in postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 24, no. 1: 5–15. *Schelly, C.L., P.L. Davies, and C.L. Spooner. 2011. Student perceptions of faculty implementation of universal design for learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 24, no. 1: 17–30. Schreffler, J., E. Vasquez, J. Chini, W. James, and A. Prefontaine. 2019. Universal design for learning in postsecondary STEM education for students with disabilities: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education 6, no. 8: 2–10. doi:10.1186/s40594-0190161-8. Seok, S., B. DaCosta, and R. Hodges. 2018. A systematic review of empirically based universal design for learning: Implementation and effectiveness of universal design in education for students with and without disabilities at the postsecondary level. Open Journal of Social Sciences 6, no. 5: 171–189. doi:10.4236/jss.2018.65014. Shaw, A. 2023. Inclusion of higher education disabled students: A Q-methodology study of lecturers’ attitudes. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–22. doi:10.1080/13562517.2023.2280266. *Smith, F.G. 2012. Analyzing a college course that adheres to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 12, no. 3: 31–61. Snijders, I., R.M.J.P. Rikers, L. Wijnia, and S.M.M. Loyens. 2018. Relationship quality time: The validation of a relationship quality scale in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development 37, no. 2: 404–417. doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1355892. Spaeth, E., and A. Pearson. 2023. A reflective analysis on neurodiversity and student wellbeing: Conceptualising practical strategies for inclusive practice. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice 11, no. 2: 109–120. doi:10.56433/jpaap.v11i2.517. Stentiford, J., and G. Koutsouris. 2021. What are inclusive pedagogies in higher education? A systematic scoping review. Studies in Higher Education 46, no. 11: 2245–2261. doi:10.1080/ 03075079.2020.1716322. Timuș, N., M.E. Bartlett, J.E. Bartlett, S. Ehrlich, and Z. Babutsidze. 2024. Fostering inclusive higher education through universal design for learning and inclusive pedagogy—EU and US faculty perceptions. Higher Education Research Development 43, no. 2: 473–487. doi:10.1080/ 07294360.2023.2234314. UNESCO. 2021. Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. Paris: UNESCO. Valencia, M.C., M.R. López, B.Z. Centeno, and L.A. Bonilla. 2018. The styles visual, auditory, kinesthetic and competences in the classroom. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research 9, no. 6: 27679–27682. doi:10.24327/ijrsr.2018.0906.2310. Yang, M., M.S.U. Duha, B.A. Kirsch, N. Glaser, H. Crompton, and T. Luo. 2024. Universal design in online education: A systematic review. Distance Education 45, no. 1: 23–59. doi:10.1080/ 01587919.2024.2303494. 18 A. MORIÑA ET AL.