The literature related to inclusive pedagogy focuses strongly on the inclusion of students with disabilities (Collins et al., 2018; Carballo et al., 2019; Leijen et al., 2021). Teaching practices seem to accommodate the needs of exceptional students, which may not be fully inclusive unless other classroom diversities such as gender and academic background are addressed (Burgstahler, 2021). More studies include parameters other than disability, such as age, gender, ethnicity, academic background, and learning styles in inclusive education (Waitoller and Thorius, 2016; Gale et al., 2017; Grier-Reed and Williams-Wengerd, 2018). Recognizing that everyone could learn better under the right conditions (Moriña, 2020), inclusion in the pedagogical setting is described as a process in which educators “respect and respond to human differences in ways that include learners in, rather than exclude them from, the daily life of the classroom” (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011, p. 814).

Scholars identify three broad domains with which to approach inclusive pedagogy when teaching students with and without disability: (i) a belief that all students bring something of value to the learning environment; (ii) a design that values differences while also providing access to and enabling engagement with dominance; and (iii) actions that work with students and their communities (Gale et al., 2017; Moriña, 2020). In other words, inclusive pedagogy focuses not only on universally effective ways to transfer and assess content knowledge but also considers a wide range of cognitive, affective and behavioral issues, such as incorrect assumptions about students’ knowledge and skills, differential expectations of students, and quality of relations and respect between teachers and students from different backgrounds (Singh, 2011). Research has also found that students experience a range of academic challenges related to previous educational experiences and academic preparedness, such as language issues contributing to poorer academic and communication skills (Bisai and Singh, 2020), inadequate student support mechanisms, and a lack of understanding of what is expected academically (Stevenson, 2012). Together, this triad of beliefs, designs and actions indicates that a course design must be planned right from the start to be as inclusive and accessible as possible and to satisfy the educational needs of all students (Moriña, 2020).

Regarding the inclusiveness of classroom practices, studies show that effective interventions are associated with a set of common characteristics, such as catering to diverse needs and expectations, proactive and flexible sessions with relevant content and well-timed instruction, collaborative and facilitated environments followed by quality feedback, and using accessible technology and media (Thomas, 2016; Chiu and Hew, 2018; Carballo et al., 2019; Moriña, 2020; Zhao et al., 2021). As opposed to traditional teacher-centered instruction that prioritizes knowledge transmission through monologic lectures with limited interaction and is evaluated based on students’ ability to correctly reproduce such knowledge, inclusive pedagogy employs a constructivist approach to create an inclusive environment for all learners. In other words, teachers approach the classroom as co-creators of knowledge working alongside students rather than in front of them (Grier-Reed and Williams-Wengerd, 2018).

Universe design principles are applied in various educational products (websites, software, textbooks) and physical environments (dormitories, classrooms, libraries, student services). The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) developed the UDL, especially for designing technology-mediated instruction (Burgstahler, 2015). UDL is “a research-based set of principles that together form a practical framework for using technology to maximize learning opportunities for every student” (Rose and Meyer, 2002: preface). The framework recommends presenting course content in multiple ways, providing students with various options for engagement, and facilitating their choices to demonstrate acquired knowledge and skills (Rao and Meo, 2016; Chiu, 2021a,b,c). In addition, drawing from research in neuroscience, the framework helps teachers (i) set appropriate goals for every student, (ii) choose the teaching methods and materials that give every student optimal instructional support, and (iii) ensure the fair and accurate assessment of every student’s progress (Rose and Meyer, 2002; Chiu, 2021a,b,c) by offering multiple options for classroom engagement, representation, and action and expression (see Figure 1).

For example, providing students with multiple options for engagement implies (i) fostering learners’ interest with learning activities that offer individual choice, autonomy, relevance, minimum distractions; (ii) sustaining learners’ effort with tasks that provide clear goals, intellectual challenge, peer collaboration, and timely feedback; (iii) supporting self-learners’ regulation with activities that improve motivation and coping skills as well as self-assessment and reflection.

Second, giving learners more options for representation entails using different tools and media (iv) to support their multiple perceptions through customizable and alternative audio-visual information; (v) optimizing language and symbols using clarified vocabulary, structure, text decoding, illustrations with multiple media; (vi) optimizing comprehension by using background knowledge; patterns, big ideas, visualization, and generalization.

Lastly, the UDL environment also provides many alternatives for action and expression, especially for (vii) increasing physical action using varied response and navigation, optimized access and assistive technologies; (viii) stimulating communication through multiple media and support for practice and performance; (ix) developing executive functions such as goal-setting, planning, strategizing, managing information and monitoring progress (CAST, 2018). Digital technology is a key tool in applying such inclusive pedagogical practices (Schreiber, 2017). Studies identify optimal usability designs, behaviors, and tools to highlight the role of web-based curricula and embedded support when implementing UDL in a classroom setting (Edyburn, 2020). However, the role of digital technology in UDL has been a topic of debate for some time. Some authors suggest that because it provides teachers/students a means of representing/demonstrating knowledge in multiple ways by engaging many students and accommodating diverse needs, technology is a key element of UDL (Spencer, 2011; Capp, 2017). Others argue that learner-centered pedagogy is more vital to the acceptance of UDL (Courey et al., 2012). However, many teachers and authors maintain that integrating technology with sound instructional strategies and curriculum helps create customized and scaffolded learning experiences for students with diverse needs (Capp, 2017; Edyburn, 2020; Burgstahler, 2021; Ismailov and Ono, 2021).

Overall, most studies support the claim made by CAST about the effectiveness of UDL in catering to classroom diversity and increasing access to learning by reducing physical, cognitive, intellectual, and organizational barriers (Rose and Meyer, 2002; Capp, 2017). With some exceptions (e.g., King-Sears et al., 2014), the UDL is found to be effective in improving the learning process across elementary to postsecondary education as well as different subject areas involving students with and without disabilities (Schreiber, 2017).

Recent studies focus on how UDL affects learners’ behavioral engagement in online and blended environments (Sanchez-Gordon and Luján-Mora, 2016; Al-Azawei et al., 2017; Rogers-Shaw et al., 2017; Herrara Nieves et al., 2019). They find that using UDL-embedded educational technologies enhance learner willingness and motivation to accept online learning (Al-Azawei et al., 2017), resulting in greater behavioral engagement of all the students. The studies suggest various UDL-based instructional designs. For example, incorporating various assignment formats and flexible options in highly structured formats show that students responded positively to the course design and instructor interaction (Rao et al., 2015; Chiu, 2021a,b,c). Different activities, such as self-evaluation, forums, tests, and tasks, should be provided to students to freely choose the activities they prefer (Fidalgo and Thormann, 2017). Offering students a wide range of stimulating activities, such as tag clouds, mind and concept maps, comment writing, homemade audio-visual, and pictorial tasks, enhance the participation of all the students (Herrara Nieves et al., 2019). Overall, these studies showed that UDL-based designs are more likely to engage all students in online environments, addressing the issues of inclusion and diversity.

An important emotional aspect of UDL is associated with the instructor’s presence. Studies suggest that the instructor’s nurturing nature and behavior influence how students perceive their needs support (Hinshaw and Gumus, 2013; Stein, 2014; Moriña, 2020). Attentive, approachable, and encouraging teachers are more likely to emotionally engage students in learning in response to their queries (Zhao et al., 2021). They make reasonable adjustments to meet students’ individual needs, provide clear course requirements and expectations, and respond to student queries in a timely manner. Teachers can use UDL approaches to prioritize contextualized, personalized, and culturally relevant content instruction to elevate students’ effort, motivation, and self-regulation (Herrara Nieves et al., 2019).

Moreover, using UDL-based digital technology in online learning can emotionally engage students in online learning by promoting learners’ self-expression and a sense of belonging to a community and fostering learners’ ability to demonstrate what they learn in the virtual classroom (Herrara Nieves et al., 2019). In this learning environment, students express greater emotional engagement due to improved student-student communication and more fun learning (Chiu, 2021a,b,c). However, the research also points out that the affective response may vary depending on the course and its perceived utility and on whether the courses are blended with traditional approaches to meet students’ intrinsic needs and expectations (Cassidy, 2016). One of the expectations in both asynchronous, synchronous, and blended courses is the need for socialization and connection with peers and teachers (Ismailov and Laurier, 2021; Ismailov and Ono, 2021). Studies emphasize the importance of socialization and collaborative learning using various social networking tools, such as Twitter, Facebook or LMS-embedded chats (Wang et al., 2018). Accordingly, how UDL-based designs emotionally engage students in different gender and academic groups remains unclear.

From a cognitive perspective, studies suggest that an effective online course using UDL principles typically features applicability and relevance of content, prompt and meaningful instructor feedback, and clear guidelines, course materials, and assignment parameters (Chiu and Mok, 2017; Rogers-Shaw et al., 2017; Chiu et al., 2020; Chiu and Lim, 2020). By exploring the influence of online UDL elements on students’ perception of learning and learning satisfaction, one study shows a significant correlation with integrated active learning activities, interactive engagement strategies, and robust assessment design and therefore recommends online instructors to widely utilize UDL principles to design their courses (Chen et al., 2018).

Studies also emphasize the effectiveness of high-quality and attractive videos to reach diverse student populations, especially those who want a high level of flexibility and more control over how they learn (Dinmore, 2019). While admitting that students in asynchronous online environments might still need teachers’ guidance, one study suggests that providing accessible review videos allowed students to practice and master content on their own, strengthening their independent study skills (Elliot et al., 2020). Although there is not enough empirical evidence regarding UDL’s comprehensive effect on learning outcomes (Capp, 2017), the existing research suggests that online courses based on UDL are cognitively more stimulating for diverse groups of students. Overall, the literature shows that although UDL is designed to foster diversity and inclusion, it may still have a different impact on different learners in diverse disciplinary contexts.

Previous research found that UDL was effective in reducing barriers to learning, catering to classroom inclusion, and improving the learning process in students with diverse characteristics (Capp, 2017; Schreiber, 2017). However, most studies examined UDL mainly in MOOCs or in synchronous and blended environments. There has been a paucity of research on how fully asynchronous UDL-based courses cater to diversity and inclusion in a university setting. The SDT can explain how UDL engaged students in learning with technology from a needs satisfaction perspective (Ryan and Deci, 2020; Chiu, 2021a,b,c).

The goals of this study are to examine (i) whether pedagogically inclusive asynchronous pedagogic practices based on UDL could cater to inclusion and diversity across genders (female/male) and academic fields (Arts/Sciences); (ii) whether such instructions support learner engagement, performance, and needs satisfaction; and (iii) how the design supports learning. Accordingly, the following research questions were developed:

To achieve the research goals, this study designed and implemented two 15-week fully asynchronous online courses based on the UDL framework and tested their effectiveness among university students in a quasi-experimental setting.

Participants were freshmen students (N = 225) attending English for academic purposes (EAP) online courses at a large university to the northeast of Tokyo, Japan. One group of students attended the “English reading skills” course (C1), and another attended the “English presentation skills” (C2). Both courses typically enroll very diverse and mixed populations from arts and science majors. These courses are also diverse in terms of gender composition. The researchers obtained ethical clearance from the university and consent from the participants.

Both courses were taught to different groups of students for 15 weeks. All classes were redesigned to suit the online format during COVID-19. The university requested to conduct classes asynchronously to help freshmen adapt to university life and support those who experienced problems with online learning. The courses were based on the Microsoft Teams™ Learning management system (LMS). Prerecorded video lectures, instructional materials, and weekly learning tasks for both courses were designed in line with the UDL guidelines, as shown in Figure 2. Specifically, the following UDL principles and sub-criteria were integrated into the design of the two courses:

This quasi-experimental study adopted a sequential explanatory mixed method. In the first stage, objective statistical results were obtained through quantitative analysis. The focus was on understanding whether the UDL design was able to cater to diversity across gender and academic background based on needs satisfaction and engagement. To triangulate quantitative data, open-ended questionnaires were used to examine the students’ subjective responses to explain the findings of the quantitative data. Two experienced researchers independently conducted deductive content analysis to identify recurring themes in student responses (interrater reliability = 93%). This protocol helped synthesize and analyze students’ in-depth perspectives on how UDL design supported learners’ need satisfaction and engagement.

First, both male and female students equally engaged in their learning in the asynchronous course and equally perceived the needs support from the course’s universal design. Similarly, there were no differences between science and art students in their needs satisfaction and engagement in course learning activities. These findings were aligned with SDT-based studies that suggested that needs satisfaction can stimulate student engagement in the course (Chiu, 2021a,b). From SDT’s perspective, all students, irrespective of their diversity, were intrinsically inclined toward learning and mastery, but these human tendencies necessitated fostering conditions, such as need-supportive teaching behaviors, inclusive design, and learning environments (Ryan and Deci, 2017, 2020). When teaching designs satisfied these needs, students were more likely to be motivated to engage in learning tasks (Hew and Cheung, 2014; Hsu et al., 2019; Chiu, 2021a). This study’s results also found strong support in UDL-based studies (Rao et al., 2015; Fidalgo and Thormann, 2017; Herrara Nieves et al., 2019).

Second, the qualitative data found that although universal designs could cater well to inclusion along with supporting autonomy and competence, they nonetheless did not fully satisfy learners’ needs for relatedness. For example, UDL-based asynchronous courses supported autonomy by providing the choice of multiple learning modalities (Chiu, 2021c). Similarly, such designs were effective in enhancing learners’ perceived competence and self-efficacy by offering optimal challenges, timely and positive feedback, and practically relevant assignments (Ryan and Deci, 2017; Chiu et al., 2021; Ismailov and Ono, 2021). For example, when students were given multiple options for completing certain tasks, they selected those types of assignments that matched their perceived competence and self-efficacy. Namely, when science-majoring students were completing concept maps, most of them tended to select themes related to their field, such as geology, engineering, etc. (see Figure 3). Despite these merits, an asynchronous format of learning with the universal design was not as effective as peer learning in real-time, the latter markedly increasing the available support for sustained engagement (Chiu and Hew, 2018; Wang et al., 2018). It is further explained in the next implication.

Third, this study confirmed that relevant content, clear guidelines, course materials (Rogers-Shaw et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018), and high-quality and attractive prerecorded videos (Dinmore, 2019; Elliot et al., 2020) enhance cognitive and behavioral engagement. However, this study also established that similar to the lack of perceived relatedness, emotional disengagement occurred in students who learned best when closely socializing with peers and teachers. Although the two UDL-based online courses used tools to promote learners’ self-expression and a sense of belonging to a community (see Figure 4), such as discussion boards, asynchronous chats, and 1-on-1 presentations (Herrara Nieves et al., 2019), they could not fully replace face-to-face or synchronous online interaction conducted through video conferencing software. Previous studies found that courses that were blended with live and interactive approaches satisfied students’ intrinsic needs and expectations (Cassidy, 2016; Ismailov and Ono, 2021). Additionally, by feeling closely connected with peers and teachers, learners experience better inclusion and belonging (Ryan and Deci, 2017; Chiu, 2021a; Ismailov and Laurier, 2021).

Finally, the present study found that the levels of social interaction and universality in such courses were also dependent on the learning goals of each subject (e.g., Reading vs. Speaking courses) and students’ personal characteristics and social circumstances (shy vs. outgoing; introverted vs. extraverted; had a part-time job vs. was flexible; had limited vs. unlimited access to Internet). For example, some students in this study first complained about the lack of regular live interactions with peers, but then they admitted that it would be “very stressful” (C2-S76) for them to participate because of their “own shyness” (C1-S32), “scheduling issues” (C1-S6), “poor Internet/broken PC” (C1-S92; C2-S49) or “some not-so responsible classmates” (C1-S50). Interestingly, Japanese female students across both Arts and Sciences tended to prefer slightly less socially interactive live sessions than males did (see Table 1), citing their “shyness” (C1-S32) or “embarrassing English” (C2-S84). In addition, many freshmen in this study mentioned that although the courses offered “many interesting task options” (C2-S22) to choose from, at times it was too hard for them to decide, they preferred teachers to provide only “fewer but very very good options” (C1-S17). The need for contextualization were discussed further as part of practical recommendations.

This paper made a theoretical contribution to understanding UDLs from the perspective of SDT. The idea that offering multiple options for classroom engagement, representation, and action and expression—the three core principles of UDL—made learning inclusive originated in cognitive neuroscience (Rose and Meyer, 2002; Burgstahler, 2021). Surprisingly, to date, only a few studies looked at UDL through the prism of social psychology, such as SDT. The results of the present study showed that many of the UDL guidelines are strongly supported by the SDT needs satisfaction framework.

First, the need for autonomy seen as voluntariness and initiative (Ryan and Deci, 2017) found a strong connection with UDL, which stressed that offering learners choices increased self-determination and pride in accomplishment and enhanced the feelings of belonging and ownership of activities (CAST, 2018). Thus, both SDT and UDL supported the premise that teachers should allow students to participate in the design of classroom activities and encourage learners to set their own personal academic and behavioral goals. Second, perceived competence seen by SDT as the feeling of mastery and self-efficacy (Ryan and Deci, 2017) equally supported the UDL framework. Inclusive design provided options for self-regulation and sustaining effort by heightening the relevance of goals and objectives, varying demands, and resources to optimize learning challenges, and increasing mastery-oriented feedback (CAST, 2018; Burgstahler, 2021).

Last, SDT’s focus on relatedness is strongly echoed by UDL, which helps learners feel comfortable communicating and collaborating within a community of learners (CAST, 2018). Indeed, this study demonstrated that by supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness (SDT) as well as engagement, representation, expression/action (UDL), the two frameworks proactively nurtured diversity and inclusion and improved learner performance and satisfaction.

The study offers one practical suggestion for instructional designers and two recommendations for asynchronous online instructors in tertiary education teaching students with and without disabilities. The main suggestion for instructional designers is that the principles of UDL should not be approached as a “one-size-fits-all framework.” Indeed, UDL effectively caters to diversity by reducing physical, cognitive, intellectual, and organizational barriers (Rose and Meyer, 2002; Capp, 2017), but not all learners may necessarily see these conditions as “barriers,” as this study reveals. This study shows that “generalized UDL” may have a different impact on different learners in diverse disciplinary contexts. To optimize a UDL-based online course, designers and instructors should first carefully examine relevant factors, including external contexts that demand changes in the course, the course’s existing features, learner characteristics and needs, and the nature and requirements of the course content, activities, and assessments (Cai and Robinson, 2021; Jiang and Zhang, 2021). This can also be achieved through regular observation of teacher-student classroom interaction and provision of necessary support and adjustments when the course is still ongoing (Cotán et al., 2021). In short, UDL course designs should be approached as dynamic systems requiring constant monitoring and regular contextual adjustments.

For teachers, our first recommendation is to scrutinize the UDL guidelines themselves and adjust them to their specific courses without relying too much on institutionally recommended settings. The UDL has been in making for many years, and the current version (last accessed 19 November 2021)¹ offers a wide variety of options for recruiting learner interest, sustaining effort and persistence, and self-regulation (CAST, 2018).

Our second recommendation is to optimize the level of social interaction in asynchronous courses. We believe that teachers should include face-to-face or, when impossible, synchronous online sessions and activities. Since students have different preferences in an asynchronous university setting (i.e., some want to study alone, while others want to study in groups), teachers may conduct “preference polls” at the beginning of each course and divide the class into small cohorts based on their modal preferences. Alternatively, teachers may explicitly instruct students that any format of collaborative learning is acceptable if baseline rules are followed by everyone. Indeed, the last point should be tried with caution, as it requires a collective effort, constant teacher scaffolding, and especially with freshmen groups, more direct task instruction (Ismailov, 2021a,b,c).