Over the past few decades, higher education has experienced significant transformations driven by changes in demographics (Riddell, 2017), technology (Turnbull et al., 2021), academic resources (Newman et al., 2021), and societal expectations (Schofer et al., 2021). Globally, universities are recognizing a responsibility to support diverse student populations through frameworks of universal access and design (Dalton et al., 2019; Novembli et al., 2024). As universities broaden access welcoming the full diversity of students, growing numbers of students identifying as disabled and/or neurodivergent (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024; Xie & Rice, 2021), first generation students (Boothe et al., 2018; Rao, 2019) and students from a vast array of cultural backgrounds and prior learning experiences (Fovet, 2019; Rao, 2019) are entering higher education. In turn, university faculty and staff are increasingly pressed to enhance their teaching methodologies through inclusive pedagogy and practices.
Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework designed to foster accessibility and inclusivity in education (Dell’Anna et al., 2024). Through a UDL lens, learning environments and related course content are designed proactively, with a diversity of students in mind (Meyer et al., 2014). Planning proactively for all learners is a shift from traditional planning frameworks, and entails eliminating barriers to learning using three core principles: multiple means of representation, engagement, and action and expression (Meyer et al., 2014). Essentially, UDL supports access to learning for all students, minimizing the need for reliance on individualized accommodations and retrofitted content. Both the Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) and the National Education Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2016) endorse UDL as a framework for reducing learning barriers and supporting accessible learning experiences.
Higher Education Faculty & UDL
While there is evidence that teacher preparation faculty are generally receptive to inclusive education frameworks (e.g., Fornauf et al., 2023), research suggests higher education faculty resistance around the widespread adoption of UDL (Hills et al., 2022) as well as uncertainty about how to implement UDL (Hromalik et al., 2019). This resistance may be in part due to misconceptions about UDL, the time-commitment of UDL implementation and a lack of institutional support and resources (Hills et al., 2022). Further, university faculty are often content area specialists with limited training in how to teach using inclusive pedagogy and practices (Hromalik et al., 2020). Further, UDL is especially complex to implement as there is no one correct implementation pathway (Moore et al., 2018).
Moore et al. (2018) explored the similarities and differences in UDL implementation among faculty at U.S. universities. After conducting qualitative interviews with six faculty members engaging around UDL, Moore et al. (2018) concluded that the scaling up of UDL implementation at the university level requires faculty buy-in. There remains a gap in the literature that explores the viewpoint of faculty experiences adopting UDL at the postsecondary level and/or exploring faculty resistance and buy-in.
The purpose of the present study is to explore the experiences of faculty coming together to engage in UDL implementation through the following research question: How do faculty reflect on their actions after a yearlong professional development training on UDL implementation? Building on a prior study of faculty perspectives shared while engaging in professional development with UDL trainers (Morettini et al., 2025), the present study explores the experiences of faculty honing their professional skills around UDL through communities of practice. Valuing faculty experiences, the study aims to parse out broader implications for UDL implementation at the university level and to highlight tensions and understandings of faculty adopting UDL when it is not the institutional norm.
Theoretical Framework
To frame the study, we draw on community of practice theory (Wenger, 1998) and Schon’s reflective model (Schon, 1983).
Communities of Practice
Community of practice theory is grounded in the idea that knowledge is socially constructed through an individual’s participation within a group that shares a common practice (Wenger, 2011). Three key characteristics are inherent within communities of practice: domain, community and practice (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015). The domain, or shared interest, unites a group. For example, the shared interest in improving teaching and learning for university students unites diverse faculty in their commitment to adopting UDL principles. The community entails relationship building around this shared interest. For example, faculty adopting UDL principles share their experiences and ideas with one another through structured meetings and informal networks. Finally, the practice itself is shared. Within a community of practice, faculty engage with one another as practitioners. For instance, faculty share instructional experiences related to UDL implementation resulting in a collective repertoire of UDL practices and strategies.
Reflection-on-Action
While the authors’ previous research (Morettini et al., 2025) explored reflection-in-action, here, we take up reflection-on-action (Schon, 1983). More specifically, our lens in this study focuses on how faculty reflected on implementing UDL in their courses and on supporting departmental colleagues in UDL implementation. Moreover, in the present study we consider the experiences of faculty engaging within communities of practice with their peers to learn about and implement UDL within an institution where implementation of UDL is not widespread. Through a community of practice framework, we explore faculty experiences with UDL as well as how faculty’s informal learning networks may impact their successes and tensions around UDL implementation within the broader university community. We anticipate that faculty may experience tensions within their communities as early adopters of UDL amidst institutional resistance and a lack of widespread recognition of their efforts. Likewise, through engagement in shared practice with peers, faculty may exchange strategies and adapt creative practices to overcome collective barriers leading to wider institutional UDL buy-in.
Methods
Context and Participants
Thirteen faculty members from a national public research university elected to engage around their shared interest in UDL. The university, located in the northeastern United States serves over 23,000 students through undergraduate and graduate programs and holds a commitment to inclusion for all university students. Faculty self-selected to participate in a year-long professional development training, forming a community of practice. Ten faculty members consented to participate in the present study (7 female and 3 male). The faculty members held positions across colleges in the university and across content areas as follows: political science (n= 2); English (n= 2), history (n= 2) with one faculty member each instructing in the content area of anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and world religions.
UDL Communities of Practice
Faculty engagement with one another was both formal and informal. During the fall semester, formal opportunities for engagement included three UDL professional development modules: (1) introduction to UDL, (2) syllabus development and flexible course policies, and (3) flexible assignments and activities. Faculty completed online modules, then engaged with one another around content and recommended strategies for UDL implementation. This included, for example, sharing syllabi redeveloped with a focus on UDL, and participating in both follow-up large group and partner sessions. During the spring semester, faculty expanded their communities of practice by turn-keying UDL learning to additional peers in their departments.
Data Sources
To elicit faculty reflection-on action at the culmination of UDL training, an online survey of five open-ended questions was developed. Faculty members were asked to respond to the question at the end of the academic year. This timing was essential to capture the trainer’s overall perspectives and reflections of experiences with UDL, to assess the overall impact of the project, and to inform next steps for broader UDL implementation. The open-ended questions follow: (1) Please tell us about your experiences/ lessons learned implementing UDL this year. (2) Please tell us about your successes implementing UDL this year. (3) Please describe the tensions you experienced while implementing UDL this year. (4) Do you feel secure in your UDL expertise to train colleagues on UDL? Please describe and elaborate on your needs. And (5) What are your ideas or recommendations for next steps in broader implementation of UDL?
Data Analysis
Acknowledging that our own experiences as university faculty engaging with our colleagues around universal design influence our interpretations of data, we chose reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2019) as our data analysis approach. Qualitative data analysis through reflexive thematic analysis ensures the valuing of participant experiences while also embracing the influence of researcher subjectivity (Byrne, 2022).
We conducted a six-phase reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2019) closely guided by a “worked example” (Byrne, 2022). During phase 1, all authors independently familiarized themselves with the data and took notes of initial trends and passages via analytical memoing. During phase 2, initial codes were generated using inductive open coding procedures. First, each author coded responses independently using separate columns in Google sheets. We then worked together through a recursive process, discussing and adjusting our codes through ongoing collective interaction with the data. Several iterations of coding were conducted within Phase 2 with revisions captured within a new column added to Google sheets.
In phase 3, we grouped our codes visually, manipulating codes via physical printouts, to identify relationships leading to initial themes and subthemes. As guided by Byrne (2022), in phase 4 we reviewed each initial theme and subtheme for quality, boundaries, meaning and coherence. Based on this review, six initial themes were collapsed into four, for example after recognizing overlap in two initial themes, “resistance to UDL” and “UDL is contentious” we created a new combined theme of “faculty resistance to UDL: implementation contentions.” In phase 5 we further reviewed theme wording, checking each theme against the dataset via separate color coding and a recursive analysis. Minor adjustments were made and our final thematic map was prepared. In phase 6 we prepared our written report, establishing the order of reporting in which themes and findings best build upon one another. See Table 1 for themes, sample codes and quotes.
Table 1. Themes, Codes and Quotes
| Theme(Subthemes) | Sample Codes | Sample Quotes |
| The Impact of UDL: Finding Value in Practice |
|
“Having links to all materials in my syllabus has improved accessibility for students. I’ve received very few questions about finding assignments, films, readings, etc.” “Applying the UDL framework made my courses more engaging for the students.” “I enjoyed learning about UDL and thinking about and sharing about implementing it in the classroom.” |
| Faculty Resistance to UDL: Implementation Contentions(Time and Effort)(Faculty Mindsets) |
|
“…this topic has become quite politically charged and UDL seems to be a topic that inspires charged responses.” “I appreciate the intentions behind this effort. I think the focus should be on good and inclusive teaching – that is an actual good and a real thing. UDL is the name of an ethos that masquerades as a method. It is not a method at all. If it is presented as an ethos, as some trainers did, that could work.” “I feel as though I could talk to someone about UDL who is interested and has questions and is willing to think about UDL; however, I think a resistant audience would still be difficult.” |
| Institutional Accountability: The Missing Link |
|
“The university needs to put money behind this. I think faculty need release time if they’re going to get serious about reworking their courses with UDL approaches at the forefront.” “…lack of infrastructure (physical infrastructure, Wi-Fi network, supplies, technology) and support staff to make this easier.” |
| Immersive Engagement: Bridging Theory to Practice(Collaboration)(Practical Guidance) |
|
“It has been good to work …with colleagues to highlight and emphasize UDL in their teaching.” “I particularly became an advocate of the Plus One idea, which helped me and also made UDL more palatable to colleagues.” “Challenge faculty in each department to make incremental change.” |
Results
Four themes were generated to represent faculty experiences engaging around UDL in communities of practice: (1) The Impact of UDL: Finding Value in Practice; (2) Faculty Resistance to UDL: Implementation Contentions; (3) Institutional Accountability: The Missing Link; and (4) Immersive Engagement: Bridging Theory to Practice. See Figure 1 for a thematic map of themes and subthemes.
Figure 1. Map of Themes and Sub-Themes
The Impact of UDL: Finding Value in Practice
Higher education faculty reported positive outcomes resulting from participating in UDL communities of practice not only for students, but for themselves. In terms of their own growth, faculty reported improvements in teaching, student support and leadership with colleagues. Reflections include, “I had positive experiences. UDL helped me to rethink my courses, increasing flexibility and involvement for students.” and “I helped lead departmental discussions on UDL which were very productive. My colleagues were very receptive to UDL, and many shared wonderful strategies that they’ve been implementing.”
One faculty member shared:
I think that (UDL) has been one of the most important explorations of my career, and I think, though the discourse reminds me a great deal of other inclusive pedagogy philosophies/styles, UDL works towards expanding practices that are not just student centered, but also beneficial for the professor/teacher.
Notably, the UDL community of practice lead to one faculty member applying for and winning a small grant to increase course access for students:
I offered more opportunities for diverse assignment submission types. I also provide video and audio files of readings for nearly all my readings and figured out how to caption video lectures in Kaltura, despite (university) terrible IT infrastructure. It also inspired me to apply for and win a TAP Grant. Without the training, I wouldn’t have thought of the value of this effort.
Faculty members shared examples of changes in their pedagogy and related student outcomes resulting from their UDL lens. Examples of increased student engagement were prominent:
…I found my students to be more engaged—they read more and did more work, we covered more material, they asked more questions—than ever before…and I feel as though it provided some students opportunities for personal reflection when I could not help them recover due to poor performances.
Similarly, another faculty member reported increased student engagement and shared numerous inclusive strategies they implemented that resulted in improved student outcomes:
Successful strategies I tried were: live captioning lecture slides (a student commented that he is not hearing impaired, but that this strategy helps him pay attention despite his ADHD), social annotation (more students read and prepared for class; I could place them in groups according to the depth of their engagement with a text; and I could understand where they needed help); using podcasts instead of readings or as one of several choices (lots of students liked this option, as did I), creating a dynamic and accessible syllabus in Google Docs (linked to Canvas), so that students could keep track of all their information in one place, and more.
Several faculty members described reduced student stress and anxiety as a primary outcome of implementing UDL in their higher education courses. A faculty member shared:
My biggest successes were those in my face-to-face classes where I witnessed significant less stress and significant improvement in the quality of the assignments I received. I was able to help a far larger number of students than expected and I found that I was also much less stressed.
Summing up faculty reflections on action, one faculty member detailed how their changes to pedagogy implementing UDL led to increased student outcomes across multiple areas.
By establishing multiple means of engagement and a lot of choice in texts, assignments, and other aspects of my courses; by allowing students to redo assignments; and by co-designing a portion of the syllabus with my students, I think that I accomplished a few things: 1. increased student buy-in and interest (for most students); 2. decreased student stress and anxiety; 3. improved learning.
Faculty Resistance to UDL: Implementation Contentions
Despite the value of UDL reported by all faculty participants, reports of resistance to implementation were also widespread. This resistance is detailed within the two subthemes of time and effort, and faculty mindsets.
Time and Effort
When asked about any tensions experienced during UDL implementation, faculty shared the time investment needed to understand UDL, to implement UDL changes and to enact UDL with students in practice. Faculty reported resistance to putting in the time and effort needed to learn about and implement UDL. This included their own resistance and/or the reporting of this resistance from their peers. One faculty member shared the tension of time and effort around attempts to build flexibility into student assignments and assessments:
Re-grading/grading resubmitted assignments is particularly time consuming, but other elements of UDL can be extra time consuming too, especially when using them for the first time. Two: Occasional issues with student buy-in or confusion—a few students really did not like my specifications grading system and were annoyed when asked them to revise and resubmit an assignment; they claimed that “traditional” approaches to learning and grading work better for them… Three: Flexible deadlines can sometimes backfire (students may put everything off until the end, and then not be able to complete the work: or they may come back to the faculty member after the semester ends, asking to submit more work in an effort to bring up a final grade).
Likewise, another faculty member reported:
Change is always difficult, and I would say the biggest tension involved how much time and effort it took to understand UDL and to implement changes in line with its ideas. Good teaching of course takes time and effort but the flexibility that UDL requires can be very demanding. Another tension, which went better than anticipated but was still a challenge, was bringing other faculty along. There were times when it was a struggle to persuade faculty members that UDL was worth the investment of time. In but mostly beyond our department there was a fair degree of bellyaching about why things couldn’t be done rather than how they could. It strikes me this is a significant issue to think about as UDL is implemented across the university.
Faculty Mindsets
Building on the tension of time and effort, and fueled by struggles with practical implementation of UDL, reports of UDL perceived as rhetoric by faculty emerged throughout their reflections on action. Faculty who reported value in UDL also questioned UDLs relevance in alignment with topics spanning from rigor to content to course modality and ultimately to discomfort making concrete pedagogical changes. One faculty member shared:
In many ways, the training opened my eyes to many issues students encounter and helped me make my teaching more effective and inclusive. At the same time, I found the rhetorical approach of UDL to be cumbersome and unhelpful (to be fair, many trainers were aware of this problem). When (a guest speaker) went on for 45 minutes about how rigor may not be desirable, I felt like I was wasting time listening to him. When he said deadlines are not important in engineering, my head just about exploded—my first career was as an engineer and that guy couldn’t have been further from the truth. I am amazed he could utter something so palpably false without a whiff of humility. Too much of the process was UDL marketing, not concrete pedagogical solutions.
Faculty reflections that UDL does not align with teaching specific content were further emphasized by another faculty member who shared, “I am a STEM person by training, and I think most STEM professors would not take up the UDL training I had in the last year.” Another faculty member shared resistance from colleagues who did not share their same interest in learning about UDL implementation:
The UDL was a surprisingly hard sell to my department. A good share of the audience resented the sales pitch approach. Some told me that there would be a lot of righteous rhetoric, followed by incomplete and often unfeasible solutions. I think this whole effort needs some careful reconsideration. Higher Ed has many goals and objectives that cannot be reduced to a K-12 special ed framework, the birthplace of the UDL approach.
Similarly, another faculty shared:
To be honest, I don’t feel that I have the “missionary gene” needed to retail UDL. I believe in good teaching and helping all my students, but I just did not find the UDL approach robust or complete. Many of the claims about psychology of learning put forward by CAST are dubious and have been exposed as such by psychologists. I am not comfor table advocating think-tank material that does not pass peer-review muster. I fear that this approach will die the same death the learning styles did 15 years ago—in fact, there are genealogical connections there. Balancing competing interests is one of the hallmarks of good teaching, but UDL’s “heart-felt anecdotes” always end in univocal solutions.
A mindset of shared resistance was wider outside of the community of practice. When discussing UDL within departments outside of their learning group, faculty found UDL to be especially “contentious.” Faculty reflections include:
…I did appreciate the various lectures, meetings, and discussions as they led me to find new activities and practices amongst those who were also invested in UDL. I learned that the concept of UDL is far more contentious that I would have thought, and I was more than a bit disappointed by the responses to UDL that I heard. I learned that UDL should be structurally implemented; it needs to be used to design the college of the future for faculty, staff, and students. I learned that there are real structural impediments to practicing UDL and that it makes it difficult to do the work of UDL within a system that does not value or utilize UDL perspectives.
Institutional Accountability: The Missing Link
Building on faculty members’ experience that it is difficult to do the work of UDL within a system that does not value or utilize UDL perspectives, the theme of institutional accountability as a missing link emerged. One faculty member shared:
The university needs to put money behind this. I think faculty need release time if they’re going to get serious about reworking their courses with UDL approaches at the forefront. And/or we need instructional designers to help with the tech end of things. Also, I think we should try to encourage colleagues in other colleges (maybe Engineering or Business) to learn about and implement UDL. If these faculty and their students have good experiences, it might help to convince the upper administration that more resources are necessary.
Another faculty member shared a reflection that universal design, implemented correctly, should not be limited to isolated classrooms:
There has to be much better modeling from the top down. I think the program did a tremendous job this year—there was clearly thought and effort put into a complex and wide ranging topic with broad impacts… (yet it) felt as though UDL was only for the classroom and not a design principle. I think the success of UDL will depend on inclusivity—it needs to be a design principle that applies to faculty and staff as well.
Faculty identified an overall lack of university support for their UDL efforts, and further, pointed to barriers within our online systems and Canvas delivery platform. One faculty member shared:
I used this year to test some of the practices and theories we learned about UDL, some more radical than others. What I found is that initially I absorbed a great deal of the responsibility for managing UDL aspects of the course, which made me more resentful and burned out. What I came to realize is that I was learning about my own work needs alongside my students and that I had not developed appropriate boundaries…Structurally I think my biggest challenge was developing a UDL friendly online course that reflected humanities based pedagogy. I knew what I wanted to do but there were a great deal of impediments to achieving the goals, primarily the limited ways UDL is understood through Canvas.
Another faculty member shared the same frustration with barriers to implementing UDL in online courses and with a system without perceived institutional support. The faculty reported being dismayed by peers who equate UDL with mandates around special education and disability:
Most of the tensions were a result of my online teaching, and I would say the other source was personal. I felt strongly that UDL should not be something exclusively used to design my classroom, and in fact if it is to be successful it needs to be applied across campus. In my experience this seems more daunting as the response from some colleagues has been lukewarm at best. I think too many are steeped in outdated ideas about labor, pedagogy, and disability.
Collectively, these data suggest faculty members perceive frustration moving beyond their shared community of practice without a push for institutional accountability. Their reflections include awareness of a lack of institutional support limiting their progress implementing universally designed course content. Another faculty member shared, “It is (the university’s) responsibility to ensure accessibility and compliance with laws. Professors should not be responsible to this type of compliance, especially when it comes to physical plant stuff and tech.” It seems, despite the time put into a community of practice, some faculty still came away with the belief that UDL is ultimately about compliance and legal mandates as opposed to good teaching practice for all.
Immersive Engagement: Bridging Theory to Practice
Beyond the perceived lack of institutional support, faculty reported successes with UDL stemming from immersive engagement and collaboration with like-minded colleagues. Faculty also reported a need for support and direction around bridging UDL theory to actionable practice. Two subthemes emerged within the theme of immersive engagement: bridging theory to practice. They include collaboration and practical guidance.
Collaboration
Faculty collectively valued learning from their time spent together learning to be UDL trainers. For example, one faculty member shared, “I learned a lot from our UDL training materials and from my fellow trainers. I hope that other faculty beyond just those involved with this initiative will take advantage of resources and training opportunities and see the value of UDL.” Similarly, another shared:
I think that I have experienced success on two levels. First, it has been good to work with our lead departmental trainer to in turn work with colleagues to highlight and emphasize UDL in their teaching. Consistently talking about and demonstrating how UDL can work well in practice prompted even the most skeptical faculty to experiment. Second, in my own personal teaching, teaching others helped me enormously to teach myself. Although I still have a great deal to learn about UDL, and some way to go to internalize all its ideas and approaches, constantly thinking about it has meant my own courses have changed and developed significantly.
Faculty also reported a sustained interest in working with peers outside of their community of practice, as trainers, despite the tensions experienced in this role. One faculty member shared:
I feel fairly secure and am happy to help colleagues think through UDL. At the same time, after spending a year thinking about this, I still do not consider myself any sort of expert. As someone who is still learning about UDL I tend to adopt the approach with colleagues that we are working through the implementation of UDL together.
Practical guidance
When asked for ideas or next steps in broader UDL implementation, faculty recommended support for new faculty learning about UDL with time to immerse themselves in learning and with specific strategies that support bridging UDL theory to actionable practice. The Plus One approach—an approach in which you implement one small change at a time—was repeatedly identified as effective. One faculty member provided a list of suggestions as follows:
Recommendations that seem important to me are: (1) embed UDL discussions as widely as possible, (2) Offer practical guidance to faculty for how they can implement UDL in their syllabi and classes, (3) do this through emphasizing Plus One, (4) challenge faculty in each department to make incremental change, (5) listen and acknowledge the challenges of UDL and concerns about standards but don’t get bogged down in those discussions. Highlight the positive aspects of accessibility, (6) Make it clear that not every approach will work for every class or faculty member, but encourage faculty to experiment, and (7) Perhaps most of all, highlight that UDL is fundamentally about thinking differently about teaching. It is a change of mindset that will help our students, which after all is what we should all be about.
Faculty also provided specific strategies, such as Plus One and syllabi redevelopment, for bridging UDL theory to practice in future work. One faculty member reflected, “I think templates for syllabus policies and types of assignments would be good.” Likewise, a colleague recommended, “Sharing how to modify a syllabus with the Plus One idea.” and “Start with the Plus One—assuring those who are unwilling to try something new, helps them make one change to help our students succeed.” Another faculty member expressed a lack of practical support as a tension to overcome, stating, (there is) “not a lot of faculty involvement at the departmental level. Faculty seem to want more practical resources, and do not seem to be able to invest the time.” Likewise, another faculty member simply stated, “More practical tips for faculty.”
Discussion
The present study explored the experiences of faculty coming together to engage in UDL implementation through the following research question: How do faculty reflect on their actions after a yearlong professional development training on UDL implementation? Faculty reflections on action suggest that implementing UDL resulted in improved student engagement and buy-in and decreased student anxiety around assignment completion. Faculty perceived UDL as a valuable framework for inclusive teaching and noted that learning about UDL in a community of practice led to professional growth within their own course design and pedagogy. In alignment with Dell’Anna and colleagues (2024), faculty reported fostering a more inclusive and supportive learning environment using UDL addressing the varied needs and backgrounds of the diverse students in their university classrooms.
Accountability and Infrastructure
In addition to the benefits of UDL, shared tensions around UDL implementation glean implications for practice. Faculty emphasized the importance of institutional support to guide faculty in actionable steps and to promote faculty accountability and positive mindsets. Faculty found that widespread implementation of UDL can be “contentious” if the larger system does not prioritize, support and embrace it. This aligns with Moore and colleagues (2018) who found that UDL implementation is difficult without faculty commitment and buy-in. Discovering the value of UDL takes time and effort. Faculty noted this and also questioned, is this a good use of my time?
Questioning the value of UDL time and effort seemed to be fueled not only by a perceived lack of university infrastructure, but also by struggles with practical UDL implementation. Several faculty struggled with the distinction between UDL principles and the implementation of self-selected instructional strategies and practices in the university classroom. For example, a core principle of UDL is flexibility in use (Tobin & Behling, 2018). In an effort to implement flexibility in their university classroom, one faculty member experienced frustration implementing the self-selected inclusive teaching practices of specification grading systems and flexible deadlines—practices not explicit to UDL guidelines—only to effectively conclude that “flexible deadlines can sometimes backfire.” It seems this faculty member’s experiences of tensions around UDL implementation may have been remedied by self reflection. Olivier and Potvin (2021) also report reflection following UDL training affirmed for faculty which inclusive teaching practices to emphasize. A firm understanding of UDL may serve as a foundation for effective implementation of inclusive pedagogy in higher education settings (Bollinger et al., 2023).
Galvin and Geron (2020) report building communities of practice around the use of a Plus One method as effective in overcoming resistance to implementing UDL for university faculty in Ireland. In the present study resistance emerged along with faculty desire for actionable steps to UDL implementation. Our findings align with Galvin and Geron’s (2021) recommendation of a Plus One approach, as the approach was one of few specific strategies shared by faculty as effective (with others including syllabi redevelopment, use of choice and flexible grading). Recommendations for other universities striving toward UDL implementation on campus include institutionally supported training in taking actionable strategies to UDL implementation.
Moreover, UDL implementation in higher education requires intimate knowledge of the institution’s values, contexts and systems (Black & Moore, 2019). Black and Moore recommend faculty proactively consider their vision of UDL implementation within the context of desired systems change. A limitation of the present study may have been a lack of collective vision development among faculty. Faculty within UDL communities of practice may benefit from overarching support to develop this shared vision as a starting point, prior to UDL implementation, and as a usable tool when taking on the role of turnkeying UDL to their university colleagues.
The present study contributes to a thin body of research on UDL and higher education. Themes converging around UDL implementation point to a need for full institutional support, and even more meaningfully, suggest that UDL is difficult to implement when not perceived as validated by the system. The need for professional development to apply UDL in action as well as to integrate UDL into various content areas and online courses emerged, with faculty reporting more successful UDL implementation in face-to-face classrooms. Despite the variability in faculty mindsets and experiences, there remained a consensus among faculty in the present study that students benefited from UDL, with positive impacts in social/emotional disposition, and academic success.
Conclusion
Recognizing both the benefits and tensions of implementing UDL, it is evident that institutional support, paired with faculty buy-in, is necessary for UDL implementation in higher education. The widespread application of UDL within a university, particularly with an emphasis on practical strategies, such as using Plus One, redesigning syllabi and embedding choice in assignments, will support faculty to incorporate UDL into their curriculum. The systemic incorporation of UDL within higher education institutions is indispensable for ensuring an equitable and comprehensive academic experience for all students.
Biography
Amy L. Accardo, EdD is an Associate Professor and Co-Chair of the Wellness and Inclusive Services in Education Department at Rowan University. She is the founding director of the Center for Neurodiversity and is co-Principal Investigator of the Learning Resource Center, both housed at Rowan University. Dr. Accardo’s scholarly activities focus on promoting equitable education opportunities for autistic young adults and working with neurodiverse students, faculty and staff to implement inclusive pedagogy and practices on campus.
Brianne W. Morettini, PhD is Professor of Inclusive Education and Co-Chair of the Wellness and Inclusive Services in Education Department at Rowan University. She is also co-Principal Investigator of the Learning Resource Center. Her research reflects a commitment to understanding teachers’ perceptions and needs to develop educational settings that embrace diverse children and communities. Dr. Morettini’s scholarly commitments deepen conversations on teacher education and development, beginning teacher perspectives, and self-study inquiry. Her work appears in national and international publications, conferences, book chapters, invited talks, and op-eds.
Erin B. Hedges is a Ph.D. fellow at Rowan University, where she served as an Adjunct Professor in both the Education Department and the Writing Arts Department. Prior to her doctoral studies, Erin spent seventeen years as an English Language Arts educator in New York City and Yonkers, New York, where she worked extensively with Multilingual Learners in both mainstream and co-taught classroom settings. Her research focuses on preparing mainstream preservice teachers to effectively support and advocate for Multilingual Learners through equitable and culturally responsive pedagogies.
Conflict of Interest Statement
No conflicts of interest to disclose.
Ethics Statement
Approval received through IRB protocol # 2022235.
References
Black, J. & Moore, E. J. (2019). UDL navigators in higher education: A field guide. CAST Professional Publishing.
Bollinger, C. M., Chenevey, L., Liu, J. C., Lantz, J., Henry, D., Bryson, B. J., & King, R. (2023). Universal design for learning access: Faculty-centered community design. In Reimagining Education: Studies and Stories for Effective Learning in an Evolving Digital Environment (pp. 223–237). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Boothe, K. A., Lohmann, M. J., Donnell, K. A., & Hall, D. D. (2018). Applying the principles of universal design for learning (UDL) in the college classroom. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7(3), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.58729/2167-3454.1076
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589–597. http://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Dalton, E. M., Lyner-Cleophas, M., Ferguson, B. T., & McKenzie, J. (2019). Inclusion, universal design and universal design for learning in higher education: South Africa and the United States. African journal of disability, 8(1), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v8i0.519
Dell’Anna, S., Bevilacqua, A., Marsili, F., Morganti, A., & Fiorucci, A. (2024). UDL-based interventions for faculty development in higher education: A systematic review. Journal of Inclusive Methodology and Technology in Learning and Teaching, 4(2sup). https://www.inclusiveteaching.it/index.php/inclusiveteaching/article/view/211
Fovet, F. (2019). Not just about disability: Getting traction for UDL implementation with international students. In Transforming Higher Education Through Universal Design for Learning (pp. 179–200). Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781351132077-11
Fornauf, B. S., Reagan, E. M., Mccurdy, K., Mascio, B., & Collins, M. (2023). Universal Design for learning in a teacher residency: Re] framing tensions through collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 19(1), 102–124. http://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2022.2129609
Galvin, T., & Geron, M. (2021). Building a community of practice across an institution: How to embed UDL through the Plus One approach between an academic developer and instructor in STEM. In Handbook of research on applying universal design for learning across disciplines: Concepts, case studies, and practical implementation (pp. 323–344). IGI Global. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7106-4.ch017
Higher Education Opportunity Act Of 2008. Pub. L. No. 110–315 (2008).
Hills, M., Overend, A., & Hildebrandt, S. (2022). Faculty perspectives on UDL: Exploring bridges and barriers for broader adoption in higher education. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), n1. http://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2022.1.13588
Hromalik, C. D., Myhill, W. N., & Carr, N. R. (2020). “ALL Faculty Should Take this”: A universal design for learning training for community college faculty. TechTrends, 64, 91–104. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00439-6
McDowall, A., & Kiseleva, M. (2024). A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice. Neurodiversity, 2. http://doi.org/10.1177/27546330241291769
Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and Practice. CAST Professional Publishing. https://udltheorypractice.cast.org
Moore, E. J., Smith, F. G., Hollingshead, A., & Wojcik, B. (2018). Voices from the field: Implementing and scaling-up universal design for learning in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(1), 40–53. http://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417732293
Morettini, B. W., Accardo, A., Prentice, K. & Alharbi, H., (2025). The professor of the future: Perspectives of university faculty implementing Universal Design for Learning, To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 44(1), 4. http://doi.org/10.3998/tia.5596
Newman, L. A., Madaus, J. W., Lalor, A. R., & Javitz, H. S. (2021). Effect of accessing supports on higher education persistence of students with disabilities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(3), 353. http://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000170
Novembli, M. S., Hasanah, N., & Fitriani, D. (2024). Investigating the impact of universal design for learning: Empowering students with disabilities in higher education. In E3S Web of Conferences 593, p. 04004. EDP Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202459304004
Olivier, E., & Potvin, M. C. (2021). Faculty development: Reaching every college student with universal design for learning. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 5(2), 106–115. http://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-021-00061-x
Rao, K. (2019). Instructional design with UDL: Addressing learner variability in college courses. In Transforming higher education through universal design for learning (pp. 115–130). Routledge. Retrieved 4/2/25 from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351132077-8/instructional-design-udl-kavita-rao
Riddell, R. (2017, July 11). Data show decade’s dramatic shift in profile id ‘typical’ college student. Higher Ed Dive. Retrieved 4/2/25 from: https://www.educationdive.com/news/data-shows-decades-dramatic-shift-in-profile-of-typical-college-student/446723/
Schofer, E., Ramirez, F. O., & Meyer, J. W. (2021). The societal consequences of higher education. Sociology of Education, 94(1), 1–19. http://doi.org/10.1177/0038040720942912
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473
Tobin, T. J. & Behling, K. T., (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal design for learning in higher education. West Virginia University Press.
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2021). Transitioning to E-Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: How have Higher Education Institutions responded to the challenge?. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6401–6419. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10633-w
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2016 National Education Technology Plan.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571884.pdf
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. National Science Foundation. Retrieved 5/22/25 from: https://hdl.handle.net/1794/11736
Wenger-Trayner, E. & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice: A brief overview of the concept and its uses. Retrieved 4/2/25 from https://www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/
Xie, J., & Rice, M. F. (2021). Professional and social investment in universal design for learning in higher education: Insights from a faculty development programme. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(7), 886–900. http://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1827372
