Facilitating individualised reasonable adjustmentsFootnote ¹ is a current and standard method utilised in tertiary education to provide disabled studentsFootnote ² with equitable access to learning (Fossey et al., Reference Fossey, Chaffey, Venville, Ennals, Douglas and Bigby2017; Newham, Reference Newham2020; Pitman & Brett, Reference Pitman and Brett2022). In Australia, this approach to adjustment is a focus of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Australian Government, 2005), a set of legislated standards under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Australian Government, 1992, 2005; Punch et al., Reference Punch, Duncan and Talbot-Stokes2025). However, there is increasing criticism of the efficacy of this method for providing equitable access (Duncan et al., Reference Duncan, Punch, Gauntlett and Talbot-Stokes2020). Griful-Freixenet et al. (Reference Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele and Andries2017) and Newham (Reference Newham2020) argued that the approach of providing adjustments to enable disabled students to access learning is a practice rooted in deficit-based or medicalised understandings of disability, within which the focus of the intervention is placed on individuals rather than adjusting the systems and institutions. Disabled students are required to take responsibility for ensuring their adjustments by proactively disclosing their disability to their university’s disability support service, submitting medical evidence of their condition(s) before receiving an individualised access or learning plan of support, and needing to self-advocate directly with teaching academics for adjustments to be made (Fossey et al., Reference Fossey, Chaffey, Venville, Ennals, Douglas and Bigby2017; Newham, Reference Newham2020; Pitman & Brett, Reference Pitman and Brett2022). Spier and Natalier (Reference Spier and Natalier2023) argue that using reasonable adjustments reinforces ableism by merely providing an accommodation to adapt to norms rather than challenging a problematic structure. This individual approach arguably confirms and strengthens a commonly held perception, as Bunbury (Reference Bunbury2020) identified, that disabled people inherently need additional help and support to succeed.

Due to the shortcomings of relying primarily on reasonable adjustments to facilitate equitable access to learning, there is a need within the higher education sector to explore and implement approaches that have the potential to make learning environments more accessible and inclusive for all learners from the outset (Cumming & Rose, Reference Cumming and Rose2022; Kilpatrick et al., Reference Kilpatrick, Johns, Barnes, Fischer, McLennan and Magnussen2017; Stentiford & Koutsouris, Reference Stentiford and Koutsouris2021). As well as this pressing need, students attending higher education nationally and internationally now come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, naturally bringing wide diversity in learning needs and preferences (Coffman & Draper, Reference Coffman and Draper2022; Griful-Freixenet, Reference Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele and Andries2017; Hill et al., Reference Hill, Tomkinson, Hiley and Dobson2016). It has, therefore, become advantageous in higher education to proactively anticipate this diversity and employ pedagogical approaches that support all students to succeed (Sanger, Reference Sanger, Sanger and Gleason2020; Stentiford & Koutsouris, Reference Stentiford and Koutsouris2021). One potential way to address this need is the practice of Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Stentiford & Koutsouris, Reference Stentiford and Koutsouris2021).

The UDL framework developed by CAST endeavours to create learning environments that are accessible, free of barriers and appropriately challenging for all learners (CAST, 2024a). Although UDL was initially intended for primary and secondary education (Fornauf & Erickson, Reference Fornauf and Erickson2020), it has since been established as a practical framework for enhancing the inclusivity of higher education for students from diverse backgrounds (Coffman & Draper Reference Coffman and Draper2022; Cumming & Rose, Reference Cumming and Rose2022). The core benefit of UDL is its ability to cater for diversity in tertiary education student cohorts (Kennette & Wilson, Reference Kennette and Wilson2019; Newham, Reference Newham2020; Sanger, Reference Sanger, Sanger and Gleason2020). The practice of UDL is based on using three principles: multiple means of engagement, multiple means of representation, and multiple means of expression and action (CAST, 2024b). While many of the strategies and tools incorporated in the application of the principles of UDL to teaching and learning contexts may be familiar to educators, an essential understanding is that UDL is a design-driven approach with emphasis placed on explicitly aligning each principle with its underlying purpose. In other words, the utility of UDL as an approach to curriculum design and delivery is inextricably linked to the integrity of implementation of the UDL principles elaborated below.

Multiple means of engagement focus on learner motivation, interest, autonomy and wellbeing by ensuring a connection to learning through the provision of precise instructions, learning outcomes and feedback (Black et al., Reference Black, Weinberg and Brodwin2015), learner choice in activities and assessments, opportunities for collaboration, and safe risk-taking (CAST, 2024b; Meyer et al., Reference Meyer, Rose and Gordon2014). The aim of multiple means of representation is to ensure learners can access and process information in manifold ways, facilitating and accommodating differences in perception, comprehension and language. Learner diversity is valued via a core understanding that learners within the range of ability, culture and language backgrounds approach content in different ways, emphasising the importance of considering how identity, culture, ways of knowing, and multiple perspectives are represented in the content educators present. CAST (2024b) argues that providing content via diverse formats reduces cognitive barriers and ensures representation and appreciation of diverse perspectives. Exemplar strategies and formats advocated include text, captions, transcripts, visuals, sign language, interactive media, diverse learning platforms, ebooks, hard copy, activating prior learning, and focusing on the critical relationships in content (Black et al., Reference Black, Weinberg and Brodwin2015; CAST, 2024b). Multiple means of expression and action create flexibility in how learners can express their knowledge by creating bandwidth to leverage their strengths while simultaneously developing executive functioning skills (CAST, 2024b). Educators intentionally aim to reduce potential or perceived restrictions, barriers and/or biases in modes of communication used by students to demonstrate their understanding of content, in essence enabling students to manipulate task requirements to their preferred formats, learning styles, or cognitive strengths. Advocated modes include using multiple formats — written, audio, visual, multimedia, assistive technologies, alternative communication methods, presentations, practical demonstrations, and group discussions (Black et al., Reference Black, Weinberg and Brodwin2015; CAST, 2024b). The main advantages of this approach are increased educator capacity to assess and monitor learner progress and ability to set (subsequent) purposeful learning goals for all learners and increased learner autonomy (CAST, 2024b). Educators are supported in applying these three principles via nine detailed guidelines (CAST, 2024b).

Existing literature provides insight into student learning experiences within a UDL framework in higher education. The application of the framework in learning environments, activities, and assessments offers various options and flexibility for students, as they can choose how to engage and interact with education in ways that best meet their needs and preferences (Black et al., Reference Black, Weinberg and Brodwin2015; Espada-Chavarria et al., Reference Espada-Chavarria, González-Montesino, López-Bastías and Díaz-Vega2023; Fovet, Reference Fovet2021). For example, there is a benefit to students being able to choose a mode of assessment that will enable them to demonstrate their learning best (Black et al., Reference Black, Weinberg and Brodwin2015; Tai et al., Reference Tai, Ajjawi and Umarova2024). However, students have also described these decisions as overwhelming (Coffman & Draper, Reference Coffman and Draper2022). Evidence suggests students appreciate clear guidance and feedback toward achieving learning objectives, a feature of UDL that strives to foster student engagement (Dinmore & Stokes, Reference Dinmore and Stokes2015; Espada-Chavarria et al., Reference Espada-Chavarria, González-Montesino, López-Bastías and Díaz-Vega2023). UDL has also been found to create more welcoming and supportive learning environments where students appreciate being able to communicate with and be supported by their teachers (Espada-Chavarria et al., Reference Espada-Chavarria, González-Montesino, López-Bastías and Díaz-Vega2023). Students also report overall positive enhancements to learning where UDL is applied, including improved academic growth, motivation, and enthusiasm for learning (Coffman & Draper, Reference Coffman and Draper2022; Griful-Freixenet et al., Reference Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele and Andries2017).

In line with its central purpose, UDL has been found to address learner variability (Coffman & Draper, Reference Coffman and Draper2022). Where teaching academics can facilitate multiple options to engage with learning, they report being better able to support all students and enable students to express their skills and learning (Izzo et al., Reference Izzo, Murray and Novak2008). Additionally, where UDL is implemented, teaching academics also report a better connection with students and greater shared decision-making between students and themselves (Coffman & Draper, Reference Coffman and Draper2022). Dinmore and Stokes (Reference Dinmore and Stokes2015) reported using UDL in an enabling program at an Australian university. The report indicated high student satisfaction, with 97% of students being satisfied with the course content and the support received from their teachers.

Although UDL is often viewed as an inspiring framework for educators, others consider it overly complex and arbitrary in its practical application (Anastasiou et al., Reference Anastasiou, Wiley and Kauffman2024). There are questions about whether UDL is sufficiently defined to provide precise interventions and identify the key components contributing to its effectiveness (Fornauf & Erickson, Reference Fornauf and Erickson2020). Another perceived issue is the need for clarity on the required quantity of UDL interventions to achieve desired outcomes, such as access, engagement, and success (Edyburn, Reference Edyburn2021). A point of criticism is the need for more rigorous, well-designed studies that assess the impact of UDL (Murphy, Reference Murphy2021). Although many studies report positive perceptions of the learning process and teaching materials, according to Al-Azawei et al. (Reference Al-Azawei, Serenelli and Lundqvist2016), Capp’s (Reference Capp2017) meta-analysis found very few studies supported measuring actual learning gains. Additionally, most UDL research focuses primarily on the principle of multiple representations, neglecting the other two fundamental tenets of the UDL guidelines (Al-Azawei et al., Reference Al-Azawei, Serenelli and Lundqvist2016). Nonetheless, despite the few studies mentioned, as a holistic model for lesson planning, UDL’s effectiveness could be demonstrated through experimental studies within various curriculum areas (Almeqdad et al., Reference Almeqdad, Alodat, Alquraan, Mohaidat and Al-Makhzoomy2023). Critics of the current state of UDL research, including Boysen (Reference Boysen2024), point to a lack of empirical rigour, with many studies being small scale, anecdotal, or lacking robust methodology. The framework is often viewed as overly reliant on theoretical foundations from neuroscience, with limited validation in classroom settings. UDL principles can appear vague or broad, making consistent implementation and evaluation difficult. Teachers may also face challenges in applying UDL without sufficient professional development or systemic support. Furthermore, some argue that UDL does not adequately address the specific needs of diverse learners, particularly those with complex disability or from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. There is also concern that UDL is too often implemented in isolation rather than integrated with other inclusive frameworks. Matters of efficacy aside, a common finding and identified barrier to the use of UDL is that it is more time-consuming to incorporate into courses, as it requires more investment in creating multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression (Bunbury, Reference Bunbury2020; Coffman & Draper, Reference Coffman and Draper2022; Kirsch & Luo, Reference Kirsch and Luo2023).

Despite limited empirical evidence, UDL is a promising approach because it promotes inclusive, flexible teaching that proactively addresses learner diversity. Although more rigorous research is needed, CAST (2018) highlights promising results from schools reporting improved student engagement, accessibility, and teacher satisfaction when applying UDL principles.

Currently, the application of inclusive pedagogies such as UDL is typically seen where teaching academics have a particular interest in improving the inclusivity of their teaching and voluntarily adopt inclusive practices (Fornauf & Erickson, Reference Fornauf and Erickson2020). Teaching academics who identify as female or do not specify their gender are more likely to adopt teaching practices that support students with disability, including principles of UDL (Lombardi & Murray, Reference Lombardi and Murray2011; Timuș et al., Reference Timuș, Bartlett, Bartlett, Ehrlich and Babutsidze2024). In Lombardi and Murray (Reference Lombardi and Murray2011), using UDL practice was also found to be more likely among non-tenured teaching academics. Regardless of individual characteristics, however, knowledge and utilisation of inclusive pedagogies consistently predict the implementation of UDL by teaching academics, indicating that professional development is a core requirement to build this capability (Lombardi & Murray, Reference Lombardi and Murray2011; Timuș et al., Reference Timuș, Bartlett, Bartlett, Ehrlich and Babutsidze2024).

While UDL encourages flexible, inclusive approaches to teaching and assessment, its application in university settings can be constrained by the demands of professional accreditation and competency-based standards. In disciplines such as health sciences, engineering, or education, certain assessments — like administering a diagnostic examination, performing a scientific procedure safely, or conducting a standardised assessment — may have limited flexibility due to legal, ethical, or procedural requirements (Black & Wiliam, Reference Black and Wiliam2018; Treviranus, Reference Treviranus2018). These high-stakes tasks often require strict adherence to established methods, leaving little room for multiple means of expression. Nonetheless, UDL can still enhance learning in the lead-up to such assessments by offering varied ways to engage with content, practise skills, and build understanding, ensuring students are better prepared to meet fixed professional benchmarks (CAST, 2018; Meyer et al., Reference Meyer, Rose and Gordon2014).

There is a commonly expressed potential of UDL for reducing reactive adjustments and accommodations for disabled students to participate in learning (Cumming & Rose, Reference Cumming and Rose2022; Dinmore & Stokes, Reference Dinmore and Stokes2015; Fornauf & Erickson, Reference Fornauf and Erickson2020). However, there appears to be limited evidence to indicate this is reflected in practice. Although interest and education are growing for the use of UDL in tertiary teaching (Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training, 2024), with some Australian universities actively working to incorporate the practice into curriculum delivery, it is currently far from standard practice (Cumming & Rose, Reference Cumming and Rose2022). The predominant focus in Australia is on reasonable adjustments as the solution to equitable access to education (Fossey et al., Reference Fossey, Chaffey, Venville, Ennals, Douglas and Bigby2017; Newham, Reference Newham2020; Pitman & Brett, Reference Pitman and Brett2022), perhaps due to ingrained perceptions of disability as an individual and medical problem (Bunbury, Reference Bunbury2020; Fornauf & Erickson, Reference Fornauf and Erickson2020). UDL is primarily included in institutions voluntarily; therefore, we have yet to see the full potential of a UDL approach in higher education. UDL undoubtedly presents greater flexibility and options to engage with learning, but it does not present a panacea for the negation of reasonable adjustments, as some students will continue to require more specialised and sophisticated support, such as assistive technology (Bunbury, Reference Bunbury2020; Griful-Freixenet et al., Reference Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele and Andries2017). Therefore, it is pertinent to invest time and scholarly effort to consider further the potential and practicality of the UDL framework in tertiary education. As such, we sought to answer three questions:

1. 1. To what extent have academic staff incorporated UDL into their teaching practices?

2. 2. What challenges have academic staff encountered in implementing UDL in their teaching?

3. 3. What resources or training have academic staff accessed to deepen their understanding and application of UDL?

Methods

This study was conducted at an Australian regional university whose focus is equity. At the time of data collection, the overall student enrolment was approximately 35,000. Student enrolment comprised high proportions of Indigenous students (1,442 students, or approximately 4% of the student population), students with disability (5,556 students, or approximately 15% of the student population), and first-in-family students (12,704 students, or approximately 36% of the student population), which is above the Australian university average (Department of Education 2024). The study received ethics approval from the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2024-0091).

In this study, we aimed to investigate teaching academics’ understanding and implementation of UDL in the context of tertiary teaching. We adopted a survey approach that included closed-response and open-text questions. This combination provided a comprehensive understanding of teaching academics’ knowledge and practice of UDL.

Study Design

The survey comprised 15 questions, of which 12 were closed response and three were open text (Table 1). It included five demographic questions. Seven closed-response questions focused on the participants’ awareness and implementation of UDL in higher education. Three open-text questions were designed to elicit the teaching academics’ perspectives on UDL. The online survey invited anonymous responses and was hosted on the survey platform Explorance Blue (https://www.explorance.com/products/blue). No incentives were offered for participation.

Table 1. Survey Questions

Data Analysis

Data for closed and open responses were analysed separately. The university’s Resource Division analysed the closed-response survey data (demographic data presented in Table 2). The first author analysed the open-text questions using Braun and Clarke’s (Reference Braun and Clarke2006, Reference Braun and Clarke2019, Reference Braun and Clarke2021) reflexive thematic analysis process, which involved six phases: becoming familiar with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing up. These stages were iterative and recursive. All research team members had access to the data and were invited to verify the results, with no differences in intra-researcher analyses.

Table 2. Participant Demographics

^a Eighteen participants responded N/A to academic level.

Participants

The university’s Resource Division conducted a comprehensive outreach to 3,027 academic staff members, inviting them to participate in a research survey. This outreach included three separate email invitations, each containing a participant information statement and a link to the study with consent details. Additionally, the survey was promoted once in the university’s staff internal newsletter. The survey remained open for 5 weeks. In total, 113 academics responded, resulting in a response rate of 3.7%. Participant demographics are presented in Table 2.

Results

Closed-Response Survey Results

The closed-response survey results offered several insights into teaching academics’ familiarity with and implementation of UDL in higher education. A substantial portion of respondents (32%) were somewhat familiar with UDL, 27.2% were not very familiar, and 31.1% were not familiar at all with UDL. Only 9.7% were very familiar with UDL. This indicates a general need for more familiarity with UDL among the academics surveyed, which could lead to improved teaching practices and student outcomes.

When asked how informed they felt about UDL and its applicability in higher education, 33% of respondents felt somewhat informed, 26.2% thought they needed to be more informed, and 35% felt uninformed. Only 5.8% felt very informed. This suggests that many academics thought they needed to be more adequately informed about UDL.

Although 31.1% of respondents had incorporated UDL into their teaching practice, 18.4% felt they needed to incorporate UDL, and 50.5% were undecided about whether UDL should be incorporated. While some academics applied UDL principles, a substantial number either needed to do so or were uncertain about its implementation.

Only 9.5% of respondents reported intentionally incorporating UDL principles in all their tutorials, labs, and lectures. A quarter (25%) did so in most of their sessions, 15.5% in some sessions, and 50% did not intentionally incorporate UDL. This highlights a gap in the consistent application of UDL principles, underscoring the urgent need for support.

Participants indicated that UDL was most frequently applied in student engagement (23.7%) and information representation (23.2%). It was also applied in the expression of understanding (21.1%) and assessment strategies (17%). However, 12.4% of respondents indicated that UDL did not apply to their teaching, and 2.6% of respondents provided other responses, mostly indicating they were not aware of UDL as a teaching and learning tool.

Respondents indicated that the effectiveness of UDL is primarily assessed through observation of student engagement and participation (27.9%), student feedback in the Course Experience Survey (24.3%), and student feedback in other forms (15.0%), while 27.1% of respondents indicated that they do not currently assess the effectiveness of UDL in their tutorials, labs or lectures, and 5.7% of respondents selected ‘other’, mostly stating they did not know what UDL was.

To deepen their understanding and application of UDL, respondents reported they had accessed professional literature (19.1%), workshops or seminars (13.0%), and online courses or webinars (13.0%). Notably, 35.7% of respondents have yet to access any resources but would like to attend formal training, 6.1% were not interested in any training, and 13.0% of academics selected the ‘other’ option, with, again, the majority of this group indicating it was the first time they had become aware of UDL. Four others reported using informal social media platforms such as online discussion groups and blogs, two others pre-academia professional experience, and one participant reported that their (current) completion of an external Master of Teaching degree was deepening their understanding of UDL.

Open-Text Survey Results

Throughout all open-text responses, teaching academics identified several challenges to implementing UDL, categorised here into four primary themes, each comprising four subthemes, as illustrated in Figure 1. Each is described as follows with excerpt quotes.

Figure 1. Challenges Encountered in Implementing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Teaching.

Resource and time constraints

Resource and time constraints emerged as a primary theme, encompassing four subthemes: insufficient resources, limited support availability, significant time investment, and challenges in workload management. Academics described resource constraints, with limited funding and access to necessary materials, as hindering their ability to conduct research and provide quality education. Additionally, time constraints, due to heavy teaching loads, administrative duties, and research obligations, made it challenging for academics to balance their professional responsibilities effectively. Each of the subthemes is elaborated upon as follows.

Insufficient resources. Academics reported encountering challenges in UDL implementation due to insufficient resources. These challenges seemed to create a sense of helplessness, with one academic stating that challenges included a ‘lack of accessible resources, lack of a readily available go-to person, lack of opportunities (including time and resources) for co-designing curriculum with students with disabilities’. Another academic indicated that a challenge was that the ‘university has even less budget than a public-school class’.

Support availability. Academics appeared to recognise the importance of UDL but were frustrated by the resource constraints and the negative influence of implementing it on time and their other areas of responsibility. One academic remarked, ‘It [UDL] requires significantly more resources and devoting resources to it disadvantages other activities.’ Another added, ‘It takes time to do well. I’ve still got more to learn. Students appreciate having options about how they will be assessed.’

Time investment. Time, or lack thereof, was a common theme throughout most open-text responses, with this teaching academic stating, ‘Time cost. Especially for larger courses, changing material for UDL is a significant cost, which is not easy to manage.’ They elaborated, ‘Time-workload modelsFootnote ³ mean that I am limited in some of the preparation and support I want to give students in UDL.’

Workload management. UDL implementation in academic settings presented several challenges concerning workload management. Workload and time often coincided, with one teaching academic stating, ‘We have very large workloads, which decreases time able to consider considerations on teaching. I do as much as I can, but it is difficult given very limited time and threats of large workloads to academics’ health.’ Similarly, another stated, ‘Time is a big challenge — for instance, in a 2-hour tutorial or 1-hour lab, it is difficult to provide a number of learning options.’

Knowledge and awareness

Knowledge and awareness emerged as a primary theme, encompassing four subthemes: familiarity with UDL, implementation uncertainty, formal training needs, and mentorship and community. Each of these subthemes is elaborated upon below.

Familiarity with UDL. Surprisingly, many participants reported they had not encountered UDL. This academic stated, ‘I honestly am not aware of UDL as a concept, though it appears I implement some of the key strategies anyway.’ Another explained, ‘I currently don’t actively implement UDL, as I am not familiar with it. But I believe knowledge on how this could be done and then having time to revise existing materials would be a challenge.’

Implementation uncertainty. Academics expressed unfamiliarity and uncertainty with UDL: ‘I am actually not even sure what UDL is, so I am not aware whether it is something I have been integrating.’ Some academics appeared not to recognise the term UDL whatsoever: ‘I’m not 100% sure what UDL is, so these questions are difficult to answer.’

Formal training needs. Despite their proactive efforts to educate themselves, academics recognise gaps in their formal training and knowledge: ‘My lack of knowledge in this area. Apart from information from the Dept of Education that I have accessed independently, I have no formal training in this area.’ Another stated, ‘I have not received any training from the university in UDL specifically related to my role. I have sought out external and internal opportunities to build my professional knowledge and practice.’ Nevertheless, they remain committed to seeking opportunities to enhance their professional skills and understanding.

Mentorship and community. Teaching academics acknowledged the complex nature of the UDL framework, and the challenges posed by the absence of a supportive community at the university: ‘The complexity of the UDL framework. It takes time to learn and not having a community here at the uni who can mentor or advise.’ Another academic stated,

The LDTI [Learning Design and Teaching Innovation] team at the university offer exceptional workshops and seminars, and I have drawn on their resources often and shared these with others. These are, however, not very well promoted to casual academic staff and are not generally promoted to professional staff.

Despite these challenges, teaching academics commended the university’s Learning Design and Teaching Innovation team for their exceptional workshops and seminars, noting the need to promote these resources to casual and professional staff.

Institutional barriers

Two core UDL implementation challenges identified by teaching academics were technological and institutional barriers with subthemes of skill limitations, tool adequacy, policy restrictions, class size issues, and course design control. Each is discussed as follows.

Skill limitations. Some teaching academics acknowledged the challenges posed by (their) limited technological skills with Canvas and the complexities of initiating classroom teaching, mainly when classroom set-ups are not conducive to diverse activities. ‘Using technology in an interactive way, particularly if there is a lack of online student engagement’ was identified as a challenge. This academic stated, ‘It is difficult to know where to start when engaging in classroom teaching. Often, our classrooms are not set up well for engaging in different types of activities — leading to more lecture-type content.’ They recognised the need for enhanced technological proficiency and improved classroom environments to foster more engaging and varied teaching methods.

Tool adequacy. Academics recognised the challenges of engaging large student numbers in online teaching environments and the difficulties in utilising technology interactively when student engagement is lacking: ‘Sometimes it is hard to engage with large student numbers when teaching online.’ This academic further stated, ‘using technology in an interactive way, particularly if there is a lack of online student engagement’.

Policy restrictions. Some academics expressed frustration with the restrictive nature of current policies that hinder the implementation of desired strategies and criticised the overall structure of university teaching and learning for failing to support UDL and broader teaching innovations: ‘Policy — there are some strategies that I have wanted to implement that I have been told are difficult to implement due to current policies.’ Another academic said, ‘The structure of university teaching and learning in all regards DOES NOT encourage or promote the use of UDL or teaching innovation more generally.’ Some academics advocated for policy reforms and structural changes within university teaching and learning frameworks to facilitate the adoption of UDL and innovative teaching practices.

Class size issues. Some academics highlighted the significant challenge posed by excessively large class sizes that can impede the flexibility and consultation essential for implementing UDL and pointed out the inadequacies of tutorial rooms and the constraints: ‘Class sizes too large to accommodate flexibility and consultation needed for UDL.’ This academic said, ‘Inappropriate tutorial rooms; first-year tutorials of 50 students and more; university policies.’ Academics call for reevaluating class sizes, tutorial room allocations, and university policies to better support the flexibility and consultation required for effective UDL implementation.

Course design control. In the context of academic employment, fixed-term contract staff members often face significant limitations in their professional autonomy. One such staff member noted, ‘As a fixed-term contract staff member, I have limited control over the set assessments for my courses.’ This lack of control extends further to casual staff, who experience even greater constraints. Another individual expressed, ‘As a casual, I have little or no say in course design or assessment choice.’ Consequently, both groups encounter substantial challenges in influencing their university’s educational framework and pedagogical strategies.

Implementation challenges

Several challenges were identified related to implementing UDL. These included UDL framework navigation, effectiveness assurance, and student engagement. Each is described below.

Framework navigation. Navigating the UDL framework presents challenges, particularly concerning time management. As academics have observed, ‘Navigating the UDL framework is a chore at the best of times.’ This complexity is further compounded when they inherit courses and must implement UDL principles with minimal preparation time. One educator noted, ‘It takes time to implement UDL. Sometimes I have inherited courses and need to run them at very short notice.’ Consequently, the perceived time-intensive nature of UDL implementation often poses substantial difficulties for academics striving to enhance their teaching practices.

Effectiveness assurance. One of the most common challenges academics reported encountering was determining the effectiveness of their teaching approaches. One educator said, ‘The biggest challenge I’ve faced is knowing if my approach is effective. Providing alternatives for students is not hard for me, but I just want to make sure that I’m doing it to the best of my abilities.’ This uncertainty is further exacerbated by the difficulty in ensuring comprehensive coverage of UDL requirements. Another educator highlighted this concern, stating, ‘Not having an idea whether I have covered all relevant UDL requirements.’ Consequently, these challenges underscore the need for clear guidelines and feedback mechanisms to support academics in effectively implementing UDL.

Student engagement. Academics often face challenges managing diverse classrooms, particularly when common discussions or group work are required. While navigating these complexities, they must also allocate sufficient time to design tutorial and lecture activities, materials, and assignments that cater to different learning styles and communication forms. One educator noted, ‘Challenges include management of a diverse classroom when there needs to be some common discussion/group work, having the time to design tutorial and lecture activities, materials and assignments that cover a range of learning styles and communication mediums.’ Accordingly, designing a curriculum that offers a diverse range of learning activities and assessment modalities while maintaining clarity and cognitive manageability is essential to fostering engagement without compromising student comprehension or wellbeing. As another educator succinctly put it, ‘Balancing having a variety of activities and assessment options, but not overwhelming or confusing students.’

Academics strive to create inclusive and engaging learning environments for all students. One educator emphasised the importance of this approach, stating, ‘Ensuring that all students are engaged and learning without making students uncomfortable’ is important. Additionally, academics focus on developing various assessment options that require focused equity effort and meet the learning outcomes. As another educator noted, ‘Developing various options for students to complete assessments that are of equal effort (size, time, etc.) and all meet the learning outcome’ is essential.