Accessible and inclusive online learning in higher education: a review of the literature

There is no such thing as an ideal online learner. However, when online enrollments grew during the 2000s, online educators increasingly investigated the qualities of successful online learners (Dray et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2020). Two qualities still discussed today are the importance of being self-directed (Doe et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2020) and communicating online successfully (Hung et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2020). These are two areas where students with specific disabilities might struggle more than others.

First, being self-directed and able to manage one’s own time and learning can be difficult for any student, especially for students used to having teachers and paraprofessionals guide and support them through K12 education. Further, many disabled students also experience difficulties with executive functioning skills or the ability to manage varying resources to set appropriate goals and create effective strategies to work towards the goals (Meyer et al., 2014). Disorganized online learning materials and confusing course navigation may create additional barriers for students who already find executive functioning difficult (Bartz, 2020; Cai & Richdale, 2016; also see Lister et al., 2021). Changes to structures or routines (e.g., discussions or assignments due on different days or at different times) can be especially difficult for autistic students (Cai & Richdale, 2016).

Instructors often do not know when online students struggle partly because body language and facial expressions are absent. The onus is on students to communicate their difficulties. However, research suggests that disabled students might not have the communication skills, specifically digital literacy skills, needed to communicate successfully and interact with instructors and peers online (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018). For instance, some autistic students with social-communication difficulties may not feel comfortable asking for assistance or participating in online courses that require social interaction (e.g., group work, discussions, or peer reviews; Cai & Richdale, 2016). Likewise, Deaf and hard-of-hearing students report difficulties communicating with peers and faculty, especially in synchronous courses where they might not have an interpreter or accurate captions (Kent, 2016).

Perhaps the biggest barrier to learning online is inaccessible content (Coombs, 2010). Inaccessible content can include multimedia that lacks accurate captions and transcripts, learning management systems or documents that are not designed for usability and compatibility with assistive technologies (e.g., screen readers), visual representations that lack alternative formats, content with poor color contrast, and systems or materials that prevent personalization. Issues like these can significantly halt a disabled student’s progress (Bartz, 2020; Fichten et al., 2009). For instance, if a recorded lecture lacks accurate captions or transcripts or a synchronous session relies on subpar computer-generated captions, a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student may be missing key information (Anderson, 2020). Even when multimedia contains accurate captions, some students with vision issues may still miss important information presented on the screen but not orally described (Covadonga & Tabuenca, 2020). Another potential barrier with online multimedia and images is poor color contrast. Specific color combinations can pose difficulties for students with low vision or color blindness. For instance, if a bar graph distinguishes between elements solely by color and does not provide an adequate description, students may be unable to interpret the data effectively.

Students should be able to customize their learning materials to suit their accessibility needs and preferences. For multimedia, students need the ability to control the volume, speed, the option to pause/stop the video, and subtitle/captioning controls to effectively comprehend the content (Covadonga & Tabuenca, 2020). Likewise, learning management systems (LMSs) or documents (e.g., scanned PDFs presenting text as an image) often restrict students’ ability to adjust text size, colors, and font, which in turn may prevent students from using assistive technology from accessing and using the information effectively (Covadonga & Tabuenca, 2020). In the pivot to remote learning in 2020, students reported an increase in inaccessible documents, including scanned PDFs that present text as an image (Anderson, 2020). Online courses also need to be designed to allow students to navigate without a mouse or with voice commands. Some students with mobility difficulties prefer to use speech-to-text software to assist in writing papers or class discussions. When online courses require significant writing, it can cause students fatigue and pain (Kent, 2016).

Studies have shown that disabled students struggle to access timely instructional materials and assistive technology (Linder et al., 2015). When disabled students report issues with online learning, they commonly remain unsolved or are solved with a non-learning solution, such as a family member reading inaccessible materials aloud (Fichten et al., 2009). Relying on others inhibits students from becoming independent learners.

Preferences vary from person to person and are greatly affected by different disabilities and situations. For instance, in one study, autistic students preferred assessments that require less interpersonal interaction (e.g., recorded presentations without a live classroom audience) (Satterfield et al., 2015). In contrast, in another study, some autistic students struggled to articulate their thoughts in writing, while others struggled with spoken assessments (Cai & Richdale, 2016). However, in both studies, students cited how flexibility helped reduce their anxiety (Cai & Richdale, 2016; also see Satterfield et al., 2015).

Disabled students are often attracted to online learning because they can learn at their own pace and take extra time when needed (Kent, 2016). However, timed exams and synchronous sessions can challenge students who face varying and often unpredictable symptoms that disrupt learning. For instance, a student with an acquired brain injury might struggle to focus and concentrate (Kent, 2016). If these symptoms arise during a timed exam or scheduled online class meeting time, students may be unable to complete the exam or participate in the class.

Disabled students often report slower academic processes that prevent them from keeping up with their peers (Bartz, 2020; Kent, 2016). For example, in one study, a student with a visual and learning disability reported the need to arrive on campus early and spend extra time reading to process information; then another student with a visual disability reported the need to rely on staff to conduct research, limiting their ability to be independent learners (Black et al., 2015). Students with mobility, learning, or speech issues might struggle to actively participate in synchronous group chats because they need more time to respond (Burgstahler et al., 2004; Coombs, 2010). Likewise, autistic students who experience social-communication difficulties may struggle to participate in group work (Cai & Richdale, 2016). When an accommodation cannot be met, disabled students are sometimes instructed to take the class at another time, further delaying their progress towards graduation (Bartz, 2020; Friedensen et al., 2021).

There are other barriers disabled students might face regardless of modality––such as additional personal responsibilities, ambivalent or negative attitudes, and physical barriers (Tobin & Behling, 2018). Disabled students often face what Bartz (2020) terms “barriers in the heads of other people” (p. 11), where people question why they would even pursue higher education. Disabled students may also face discrimination from peers, professors, and other administrators (Ginsberg & Schulte, 2012; Shpigelman et al., 2021). This discrimination can challenge students who are trying to develop a positive self-identity that includes being disabled (Sarrett, 2017).

Universal Design (UD) began in the 1950s as an architectural framework for removing barriers for people with disabilities (Roberts et al., 2011). In the 1970s, coinciding with civil rights legislation, UD evolved to make physical spaces usable for the greatest number of people (CAST, 2022a; Kumar & Wideman, 2014). For instance, curb cuts benefit not only wheelchair users but also those with strollers, luggage, shopping carts, bicycles, and more (Kumar & Wideman, 2014). People began to question how similar approaches could be used in education.

Three prominent adaptations of UD emerged in education: Universal Instructional Design (UID), Universal Design for Instruction (UDI), and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Roberts et al., 2011; Wynants & Dennis, 2017). Researchers sometimes use the terms interchangeably (Wynants & Dennis, 2017), while others differentiate between them (Singleton et al., 2019). UID focuses on building common accommodations for disabled students (e.g., extended time for exams, lecture notes, etc.) from the start (Singleton et al., 2019). UDI, as developed by McGuire et al. (2003), translated the seven UD principles for architecture (i.e., equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and size and space for approach and use) into the educational realm and added two additional principles focused on student engagement (i.e., community of learners and instructional climate). UDI, though, has been criticized for focusing solely on instruction instead of the broader learning process (Dolmage, 2017). UDL, on the other hand, is sometimes seen as an all-encompassing framework that leverages UID, UDI, and accessibility while offering greater flexibility (Singleton et al., 2019).

The UDL framework, developed by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST, 2022b), is predicated on an intentional, proactive design that considers learner variability while reducing barriers in course design (Evmenova, 2021; Rao, 2021). When learner variability is understood as typical, it can be intentionally addressed through flexible course design and intentional scaffolds (Rao & Meo, 2016). The UDL framework, building on advances in brain research and technology, was conceptualized as consisting “of three overarching operative principles, each formed to minimize barriers and maximize learning through flexibility” (Rose & Meyer, 2002, p. 74)—namely, the importance to provide multiple means of engagement, multiple means of representation, and multiple means of action and expression.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is not the only framework focused on promoting equitable, accessible, and inclusive online learning. While UDL plays a crucial role, particularly in emphasizing accessibility for all learners, it does not focus exclusively on online education. Rather, UDL provides a broad framework applicable across various educational settings to ensure that education, in any format, is accessible to all learners. Additionally, UDL principles significantly overlap with established good teaching practices (Rogers & Gronseth, 2021; Schelly et al., 2011; Wynants & Dennis, 2017). For example, UDL checkpoint 8.3, which emphasizes “fostering collaboration and community,” shares similar objectives with the Community of Inquiry framework, a model focused on creating rich, interactive learning experiences through social, cognitive, and teaching presence (Rogers & Gronseth, 2021). UDL has also been linked to active learning strategies, as both promote student-centered and interactive course designs (Rogers & Gronseth, 2021).

In recent years, researchers and educators have begun integrating UDL with other frameworks, particularly those that emphasize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or the broader concept of quality in online learning. This blending of UDL with other design frameworks often helps educators tackle a wider range of issues, from accessibility to creating inclusive environments that reflect DEI values. For example, Gamrat (2022) discussed the concept of “Inclusive ADDIE,” a DEI-focused adaptation emphasizing inclusivity throughout the instructional design process.

Beyond UDL, there are numerous frameworks and standards designed to assist educators in creating quality online courses. Over the last decade, dozens of such frameworks have emerged to guide educators in developing robust, learner-centered online environments (Baldwin et al., 2018; Baldwin & Trespalacios, 2017; Lowenthal & Davidson-Shivers, 2019). Notable examples include Quality Matters (QM) and the Open SUNY Course Quality Review Rubric (OSCQR). While not all of these frameworks focus specifically on accessibility, many have begun incorporating accessibility principles to varying degrees. For instance, Baldwin and Ching (2021) highlight how some of these rubrics, such as QM and OSCQR, include accessibility as part of their course quality criteria. In a previous study, Baldwin and Ching (2019) even found that 25 out of the 33 criteria in the Canvas Course Evaluation Checklist (CCEC) referenced UDL guidelines. The Illinois Online Networks’ Quality Online Course Initiative (QOCI) also encouraged designing a multitude of ways for learners to demonstrate knowledge, a key UDL principle (Baldwin et al., 2018). Lowenthal et al. (2021) analyzed thirteen quality rubrics and found that the Open SUNY Course Quality Review Rubric (OSCQR) was the most comprehensive rubric, in terms of accessibility. OSCQR was also the only quality assurance rubric to incorporate accessibility throughout the framework instead of in one dedicated section (Lowenthal et al., 2021). This mirrors Singleton et al.’s (2019) recommendation to incorporate accessibility-related content into all aspects of faculty development initiatives instead of tacking it on at the end of the course design process. While using quality rubrics grounded in UDL might help spread awareness, researchers caution course designers from viewing accessibility or UDL as a means of compliance or with a check-box mentality that reduces the complexity of the design process (Lowenthal et al., 2021).

Instead, educators are encouraged to engage deeply with UDL and other equitable design frameworks, ensuring they are thoughtfully applied to meet the diverse needs of learners in an evolving online education landscape.

Faculty are hired as subject matter experts. Many, if not most, have never taken formal coursework on teaching (Izzo et al., 2008; Linder et al., 2015). Even faculty with some formal or informal pedagogical training might have little experience designing online courses and often have limited to no experience designing accessible and inclusive online courses (Izzo et al., 2008; Linder et al., 2015).

Research shows that faculty who align with the social model of disability were more likely to engage with disabled students to find collaborative ways to meet their needs, regardless of disability or medical documentation (Ginsberg & Schulte, 2012; Nieminen & Pesonen, 2020a, 2020b). Faculty who aligned with the medical model of disability tended to support offering accommodations only to students with appropriate documentation and felt that too many accommodations could be unfair to other students (Ginsberg & Schulte, 2012; Harris et al., 2019).

Faculty Knowledge and Attitudes. Faculty report varying knowledge and perceptions of accommodations and inclusive design strategies in higher education (Oyarzun et al., 2021). Faculty tend to have limited knowledge of laws, institutional services, and effective instructional practices for disabled students (Singleton et al., 2019; West et al., 2016). However, research also shows that more exposure and awareness of training can improve faculty’s confidence and willingness to create inclusive learning spaces (West et al., 2016).

One common strategy to assess faculty attitudes is administering the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI) (Hartsoe & Barclay, 2017; Lombardi et al., 2011; West et al., 2016). The ITSI includes 31 items that measure six constructs, including (1) Multiple Means of Presentation, (2) Inclusive Lecture Strategies, (3) Accommodations, (4) Campus Resources, (5) Inclusive Assessment, and (6) Accessible Course Materials (Lombardi et al., 2011). The ITSI is intended to evaluate both attitudes and actions related to UD strategies. Research using this instrument has shown that women and faculty teaching in an Education Department typically report more confidence and knowledge related to UD (Dallas et al., 2014; Izzo et al., 2008). Researchers posit that education faculty may have more UD-related training due to the legal requirements in K12 teaching. These faculty are also trained in quality pedagogy and may have interacted more with disabled students in the K12 environments (Izzo et al., 2008). Additionally, research indicated that faculty have positive attitudes toward inclusive instructional practices but do not always implement such practices in their teaching (Lombardi et al., 2011). Research leveraging the ITSI also revealed that some faculty think accommodations (e.g., providing presentations, notes, extended time, and alternative exam formats) compromise a course’s rigor (Lombardi et al., 2011).

Research suggests that faculty development efforts must address the underlying perceptions of disabled students before addressing UD (Ginsberg & Schulte, 2012). Aligning course design with the social model of disability and social constructivism can provide a solid foundation for the empathy and flexibility that is needed to improve quality, accessibility, and learning outcomes for all learners, including those with disabilities (Ginsberg & Schulte, 2012; Rogers & Gronseth, 2021).

Faculty Training and Implementation. Research has found that accessibility training for faculty varies across institution types (Garrett et al., 2021; Xie & Rice, 2021). Garrett et al. (2021) posited that these differences are likely due to four-year institutions having more assistance from instructional designers and third parties to reduce the need for faculty accessibility training (Garrett et al., 2021). However, the extent of instructional designers’ knowledge and skills in accessibility and inclusive design remains to be examined thoroughly in the literature.

Research shows that while most faculty support accessible and inclusive design and teaching strategies, intentions do not always translate into action (Dallas et al., 2014; Lombardi et al., 2011; Rao & Tanners, 2011; Schelly et al., 2011; Shpigelman et al., 2021; Singleton et al., 2019). One theory is that there is confusion over what a UDL or inclusive teaching/design strategy entails (Gladhart, 2009; Izzo et al., 2008; Singleton et al., 2019).

However, familiarity and implementation of inclusive design strategies have grown recently (Linder et al., 2015). In one study, Linder et al. (2015) found that some form of UDL training occurred at 13 of the 20 campuses interviewed. Training may vary from just-in-time resources to individual consultations with DSO staff or instructional designers, one-time workshops, and courses about inclusive design strategies (Linder et al., 2015). The result is that most online faculty involved in course design are familiar with at least one UDL guideline (Westine et al., 2019).

In another study, Westine et al. (2019) found that faculty were most familiar with comprehension, expression, and communication guidelines and least familiar with strategies for physical action, language, and support. They also found a moderate to high interest in learning more about UDL, especially strategies related to sustaining effort and persistence, comprehension, expression, and communication (Westine et al., 2019). This aligns with other research showing that faculty are interested in inclusive design but require training to implement UD-related strategies effectively (Izzo et al., 2008). Westine et al. (2019) also found that most faculty familiar with UDL reported a high to moderate level of implementation as well.

Research shows that even a few hours of training on accessible and inclusive design strategies can result in faculty implementing some strategies in their courses (Dallas et al., 2014; Schelly et al., 2011; Wynants & Dennis, 2017). For instance, Wynants and Dennis (2017) created an online disability awareness program in collaboration with faculty, the faculty development center, and the DSO to help faculty understand the needs of disabled students and how to integrate the principles of UDI into their courses. Pre- and post-training surveys revealed less discomfort in interacting with disabled students, an increase in knowledge of disabled students and UDI principles, and an increase in confidence and willingness to apply UDI principles. This aligns with earlier research demonstrating faculty’s self-assessed increase in UDL knowledge after training (Izzo et al., 2008). In addition, the faculty learned to recognize the usefulness of UDI and how the integration of inclusive design strategies can benefit all learners. In fact, most of the faculty ended up making their courses more accessible. The results align with the idea that faculty are eager to address issues of accessibility and inclusivity but may feel overwhelmed due to a lack of knowledge (Linder et al., 2015; Singleton et al., 2019).

In another study, faculty received UDL training tailored to the faculty and students’ perceived gaps in UDL knowledge and skills. After the training, students reported significant changes in presenting content in multiple formats and summarizing key concepts before and after instruction (Schelly et al., 2011). When faculty summarize information, it provides multiple means of representation and can engage students in learning, both important aspects of UDL (Schelly et al., 2011).

In a follow-up study, Davies et al. (2013) improved on the research design of Schelly et al. (2011) to measure the effectiveness of UDL training by including a control group. The results demonstrated that UDL training for faculty significantly impacted students’ perceptions of instruction. Students perceived that faculty who were trained in UDL presented materials in multiple formats, aligned key concepts to the course objectives, provided outlines, summarized materials, used videos, and used organized and accessible materials. The results also highlighted the impact of positive student-faculty interactions on student engagement and achievement. The researchers emphasized that UDL strategies are mainly dependent on effective communication.

While inclusive design initiatives—and related research—often originate from DSOs, instructional designers are also well-positioned to advocate for equitable course design strategies (Tobin & Behling, 2018).

Evolving instructional designer competencies. What started with a narrow focus on media and designing instruction has blossomed into a multifaceted role that leverages technology during systematic design processes to improve learning (Klein & Kelly, 2018). Over the years, researchers have focused on creating and/or identifying instructional designer competencies to highlight what instructional designers need to know and be able to do (Klein & Kelly, 2018). For example, the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction (IBSTPI) outlined 22 competencies for instructional designers that fall into the domains of professional foundations, planning and analysis, design and development, evaluation and implementation, and management (IBSTPI, 2012). One competency under the Professional Foundations domain encourages practitioners to respond to ethical, legal, and political design implications (IBSTPI, 2012), which may be extrapolated to include inclusive design.

The Association for Talent Development (ATD) began research in 1978 on the competencies of training and development professionals (North et al., 2021). ATD’s Talent Development Capability Model contains 23 capabilities in three categories of building personal capability, developing professional capability, and impacting organizational capability (ATD, 2022a). ATD’s model emphasizes the importance of integrating diversity and inclusion principles (ATD, 2022b) while leveraging cognitive sciences and strategies for increasing motivation (ATD, 2022c), which are foundational to UDL.

Despite mentions of inclusive design strategies in professional organizations’ models of ID competencies and capabilities, we contend that research often overlooks the instructional designers’ roles and responsibilities regarding accessible and inclusive course design. For instance, a mixed-methods study on employers’ perceptions of ID competencies did not mention accessibility or inclusive design (Klein & Kelly, 2018). Likewise, other work defining the roles and competencies of IDs has not focused on or identified accessibility skills and knowledge of inclusive design strategies (Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2017; Ritzhaupt et al., 2021).

Only a few studies mention accessibility-related competencies for instructional designers. An analysis of job postings and survey data from educational technologists focusing explicitly on multimedia competencies briefly noted knowledge of accessibility software (e.g., JAWS); however, it was one of the lowest-rated competencies (Ritzhaupt et al., 2010). Ritzhaupt et al. (2010) also found that accessibility knowledge (e.g., Sect. 508) was mentioned in only 6.83% of job postings. Likewise, another analysis of 400 job announcements found limited mention of accessibility software and accessibility knowledge in general (Kang & Ritzhaupt, 2015). Park and Luo (2017) proposed a more recent refined ID competency model specifically tailored to the context of online higher education. Their model, based on research at one institution, mentioned analyzing diverse learners’ needs and assessing and remediating courses for accessibility as performance statements under the planning and analysis domain (Park & Luo, 2017). These findings illustrate a gap in the literature and an opportunity for instructional designers to lead change in higher education by advocating for and implementing accessible and inclusive online design strategies.

While there is limited information about IDs accessibility and inclusive design-related competencies, researchers agree that effective collaboration, superb communication, and the ability to facilitate innovations in teaching and learning are core competencies (Kang & Ritzhaupt, 2015; Klein & Kelly, 2018; North et al., 2021; Ritzhaupt et al., 2021). In addition, scholars suggest that implementing, managing, and leading change is critical to IDs’ roles in higher education (Ritzhaupt et al., 2021). In that vein, we posit that instructional designers are well-positioned to respond to the call to meet the needs of faculty and diverse learners through inclusive design strategies; however, research shows that IDs have varying levels of knowledge and experience designing for diverse learners. This presents an opportunity for instructional designer preparatory programs to develop curricula to address the gap in IDs’ knowledge and skills related to accessible and inclusive design.

IDs’ perspectives and implementation of inclusive design. Research into IDs’ perspectives and implementation of inclusive design strategies in the online course development process is limited. Much of the research includes practice briefs and case studies (Dinmore, 2019; Evmenova, 2021; Rao, 2021), experiences of faculty course designers (Oyarzun et al., 2021; Rao & Tanners, 2011), and position papers (Gronseth, 2018).

Only one qualitative case study identified specifically focused on instructional designers’ perspectives about the integration of UDL and faculty perceptions of UDL (Singleton et al., 2019). The data revealed that instructional designers work hard to create a trusting relationship with faculty. The IDs noted that faculty were overwhelmed by their ever-increasing responsibilities, lack of experience teaching online, and lack of technical skills. These were seen as barriers impacting faculty adoption of UDL.

In addition, research suggests that faculty can resist changing their approach to the accommodation process (Singleton et al., 2019). As a result, some IDs feel that advocating for UDL strategies could jeopardize their relationship with faculty. In Singleton et al. (2019), IDs describe how terms like UDL and accessibility scare away faculty. The IDs in that study also expressed an institutional resistance to online course development. They purported that faculty believe students should learn the way the faculty were taught (i.e., face-to-face lectures). IDs themselves were found to have varying levels of commitment to UDL implementation and knowledge of UDL principles. IDs mentioned an inability to enforce inclusive design practices and a lack of administrative enforcement. This is consistent with the call for more institutional support for inclusive design strategies (Burgstahler, 2006; Gladhart, 2009; Linder et al., 2015; Tobin & Behling, 2018).

Researchers also suggest reframing UDL in terms of improving student success, learning outcomes, and teaching evaluations as opposed to disability-focused language. This is consistent with suggested approaches by other researchers (Tobin & Behling, 2018). While additional research needs to be conducted, there is limited data that online courses do not fully utilize the available accessibility features of learning management systems (Elias, 2010).