This study addressed the lack of authentic teacher and student experiences in online inclusivity literature in HE. To answer the research question, it identified the essential elements and conditions for inclusive online LE through FGs. After analyzing the six I-TPACK model guidelines, six corresponding key elements emerged, each contributing to an inclusive online LE.
Inclusive teaching support
According to numerous studies, including (Aristovnik et al. 2020; Graffy, 2021; Hassanein, 2015; Kohnke and Moorhouse, 2021; Van Mieghem et al. 2020), inclusive online LEs enable teachers to continue learning. Participants stress the importance of self-reflection by teachers on inclusive teaching principles and themselves point to a lack of confidence and knowledge.
Teachers request institutional support for ongoing training and reflective practices to develop their inclusivity skills around accommodations, comprehensive care, inclusive skills in online methodology, incorporating feedback mechanisms or fair evaluation formats.
Participants often propose accommodations for inclusive online LEs to better serve specific groups, but they fail to recognize that these accommodations can benefit all students, which is crucial to achieving more ambitious inclusion goals. Inclusion, as defined by Göransson and Nilholm (2014), is confused with placement or integration, indicating a lack of uniform and comprehensive understanding among participants. Working more inclusively is desired, but a shared vision and language are lacking (Emmers et al. 2023). Therefore, inclusion efforts are hesitant, fragmented, and guided by intuition rather than knowledge and skills.
Flexible infrastructure and technology
The findings suggest a holistic approach to inclusive online LEs that addresses infrastructural and pedagogical aspects. Students and teachers stress the importance of providing accessible study spaces, reliable internet, and digital tools to meet their needs. Students and teachers believe inclusive online LEs should balance and integrate online and offline teaching modalities while addressing practical, logistical, and administrative issues like infrastructure, unequal technological access and use, lesson content, teacher workload, procrastination, increased study load, and soft skills learning. Previous studies have raised similar concerns (Caeiro-Rodríguez et al. 2022; Chen et al. 2022; Damşa et al. 2021; Meydanlioglu and Arikan, 2014).
Balanced and adaptive pedagogy
Teachers and students assert that an inclusive online LE fosters student autonomy through diverse communication and assessment methods, flexible curricula, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Personalized support, including clear and consistent feedback mechanisms, diverse assessment formats, and flexible scheduling, is deemed essential for promoting various learning styles and needs within the online LE. Recent literature also underscores the significance of these elements in crafting an inclusive online LE (Chen et al. 2022; Jonker et al. 2020; Kohnke and Moorhouse, 2021; Miller et al. 2021).
The flexibility of inclusive online LEs is threatened by teachers and students’ lack of preparation or disagreement on how and to what extent to achieve this (Barrot et al. 2021; Kohnke and Moorhouse, 2021; Pathak and Palvia, 2021). The debate on autonomy and online/offline lessons emphasize the need for inclusive pedagogy balance. Flexible, online learning can lead to procrastination and increased study load if not managed properly. On-campus learning is believed to be best for practical and soft skills development, highlighting the need for blended learning. Teacher experimentation with debates, interactive lessons, flipped classrooms, and recorded lectures to improve offline interaction and active engagement is especially encouraged by students. Teachers believe clear guidelines for integrating these methods into the curriculum can help create a balanced and adaptive pedagogical approach.
Participants strongly support academic standards and boundaries, especially in a flexible, inclusive online setting, to ensure quality education and degrees that meet field expectations. In order to be inclusive, abuse must be addressed, and ‘traditional’ students not neglected. Therefore, reasonable accommodations must be justified, fair, and easy to implement to avoid giving disadvantaged students unnecessary benefits (Ristad et al. 2023). The latter doubts a broader primary care strategy that accommodates all students.
Diverse course content
Teachers and students agree an inclusive online LE makes minor changes to instructional materials and visual aids to support diversity. Language awareness and cultural awareness of students with different language skills, international origins, learning disabilities, autism, and introversion were promoted. However, most participants oppose content changes emphasizing universal scientific bases over cultural influences, supporting content quality, and questioning cultural adaptations. Participants generally accept that LEs cannot fit all student cultures. The idea that diversity is based on skin color, clothing, and diet can hinder inclusion. (Abrica et al. 2023).
Social integration and community building
Student-teacher connection is emphasized by a vibrant campus, suggesting that online inclusive LEs should reflect this informality. Participants claim accessible, dynamic campus facilities and a unified, user-friendly digital platform improve the experience for all. According to Farrell and Brunton (2020) and Kintu et al. (2017), informal social interactions are most important for student satisfaction intrinsic motivation, and academic success (Schneider and Preckel, 2017).
Students prefer online, deferred, flexible learning through knowledge clips and various (evaluation) methods to meet their diverse learning needs while emphasizing that community building is mostly offline. Some teachers support online learning, but most prefer on-campus learning because, despite the benefits of online technology, they prefer classroom interaction. Reduced online interaction can lead to loneliness, procrastination, and academic pressure in students (Sahli Lozano et al. 2022). Zulfiqar et al. (2020) found a preference for face-to-face interaction in rural contexts, but Mgutshini (2013) found that online learning was valued and beneficial for student performance in urban contexts. This again shows that context affects educational preferences and experiences.
Collaborative efforts and institutional support
Effective implementation of an inclusive online LE requires close collaboration among teachers with diverse profiles, study counselors, older students, and institutional leaders, as well as clear policy measures and adequate institutional support. This collaboration is crucial for developing and communicating inclusive policies and for providing the necessary resources to achieve an LE (Pulinx et al. 2021; Tuitt et al. 2018). Regular feedback and open communication can align institutional goals with teachers’ and students’ practical needs, creating a more cohesive and supportive LE.
Conclusion and recommendations
This study explores what the essential elements are for an inclusive online LE according to teachers and students. A balance is needed between flexibility in online learning and offline community building. Although the I-TPACK model promotes inclusive online LEs, the study shows that participants feel more comfortable creating an inclusive offline LE. There is no clear consensus on how online learning can meet academic and social needs. Interactive and inclusive online LEs are mainly supported offline, with minor content adjustments that emphasize the need for practical inclusion frameworks such as the I-TPACK model in online HE (Slootman et al. 2023). Professional development programs for inclusive online education should emphasize theory but also provide practical strategies and tools to help teachers improve, feel equipped, and gain confidence in implementing inclusive online practices.
These findings suggest policy recommendations to support inclusive online LE’s. To effectively implement online learning by engaging teachers by adopting the right tools, institutions could provide sufficient time for teachers to shift and train. The policy could consider longitudinal team professionalization on inclusive concepts such as Universal Design, (cultural) awareness, unconscious biases, diversifying teaching methods, unequal ICT usage, and implementing a balanced mix of online and offline teaching modalities.
The semantic disagreement among participants about ‘science’, ‘inclusion’, and ‘culture’ highlights the need for institutional efforts to create a common language and understanding and to adapt diversity and inclusion policies across faculties. Institutional guidelines for fair and diversely responsive teaching without compromising science and academics seem important. Ambitious, appreciative guidelines that validate inclusive teaching practices can help urgently normalize inclusive education as excellent education for all students. The I-TPACK model could serve as a framework for improvement.
Collaboration and knowledge-sharing initiatives at the institutional level could further promote the dissemination of best practices and the advancement of inclusive HE. It seems imperative to introduce regular input opportunities aimed at enhancing teacher and student engagement. Encouraging institutional research into the effectiveness of inclusive practices might help to identify evidence-based approaches. Providing flexibility in the curriculum through elective courses and promoting collaboration between faculties could contribute to a more inclusive online LE. Institutions could encourage the inclusion of varied cultural, social, and global perspectives in course materials where relevant and not limit themselves to adapting, for example, names, pictures in brochures, or diverse genders (Tuitt et al. 2018). This can be achieved by including examples, case studies, and readings that reflect a wider range of voices and experiences, thereby increasing the inclusivity of educational content. Finally, improved technological access, infrastructure and support, and user-friendly online platforms seem to be crucial to addressing the ‘online teaching lethargy’ that was noted.
Limitations and future research
This study explored human experience and engaged in meaning-making, where each person’s expertise and subjectivity are strengths rather than biases. To gather diverse experiences, open-ended questions were asked and participants were encouraged to freely share their views. Teacher-student and FG quotes were balanced in reporting. Stratified sampling and random selection were used to balance gender and faculty representation in teachers and students to promote transferability. However, the study did not specify the inclusion of specific student groups, such as students with visual impairments, students from socially vulnerable groups, or international students. This lack of specificity may introduce a potential bias, leading to one-sided perspectives. Given the limited sample size of students, further disaggregation into specific subgroups could compromise the integrity of the data and the ability to reliably attribute perspectives to particular demographics. Saturation occurred during FGs. Teacher participation is higher than student participation, possibly due to time constraints, lack of interest, or research inexperience, which may bias student perspectives. Consider these factors when interpreting results because they may affect representativeness.
Future inclusive HE research can take many interesting paths to improve knowledge and practice. The sample can be expanded including student advisors, diverse age groups, cultural backgrounds, and educational experience to better understand multiple perspectives.
A comparative study across institutions and programs can also reveal findings’ generalizability and contextual factors. Additionally, in-depth qualitative interviews and observations can reveal more individual experiences and perspectives that illuminate inclusive online HE’s complexity and education effects.
link