Centering Accessibility and UDL in Faculty Development of Online Instructors

Instructional designers (IDs) developed an asynchronous online training site for faculty with little to no experience in online course design at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB). The training site focused on teaching in the online learning environment with content centered on accessibility and universal design for learning (UDL). Rather than treating accessibility and UDL as an afterthought in a separate module or appendix, principles of inclusion were woven throughout the course’s modules on course design fundamentals, course content organization, assessments and activities, delivery of instructional content, and building an online community.

This proactive integration allows IDs to move beyond legal frameworks to offer sustainable, learner-centered approaches to accessibility. Through sharing case-based insights, inclusive pedagogical strategies, and multimodal instructional practices, the chapter serves as a guide for those seeking to embed accessibility within their training programs and digital learning environments. The chapter’s intended audience includes instructors, faculty developers, IDs, and other academic support staff.

The asynchronous training course covers general aspects of creating a course: backward mapping, module-level objectives, formative and summative assessments, active learning techniques, accessible design, and templates. Examples from three Berkeley professors’ online courses were provided for illustrative purposes from course maps, pages, and demonstration sites.

Based on the IDs' experience in designing online courses in collaboration with faculty, relevant UDL considerations for assignment design were explained in the lessons. These considerations included: advance organizers for modules, varied assessment types, balanced weighted assignments, assignments with context, and a tolerance of error in submissions. The following excerpt from the faculty training illustrates how to design for tolerance of error (Chambers et al., 2025):

Designing for tolerance of error creates a safe place to fail and, consequently, can sustain effort and persistence. Technically, error tolerance is one of the principles of Universal Design (The Center for Universal Design, 1997) for tools and environments. Let's ensure the course tools and learning management platform are set up to maximize inclusivity. Here are a few ways to create a supportive environment for students to learn from their mistakes, their peers, and their self-corrections:

• Provide practice tests or allow for multiple attempts on low-stakes assignments. The Canvas test settings provide options for multiple attempts, complete/not complete, not graded, or a checkbox for ‘Do not count this assignment towards the final grade.’

• Consider a fair and balanced point system. For example, avoid scenarios where if a task is worth three points, and a student misses one, the student would then fail.

• Group work provides an effective opportunity for students to receive informal or formal peer feedback before high-stakes submissions. Possible group work configurations include drafting a reflection (e.g., verbal, written, visual) in response to prompts, collaborating on projects such as infographics, media, GIS maps, role-playing simulated situations, debates, or peer review.

• Ensure students can edit their discussion posts. Check the box in course settings to allow this.

To foster inclusive learning environments, lessons covered reducing technical and design barriers, providing multiple means of representation, expression, and interaction, and designing flexible learning paths with accessible course materials. The intended takeaway from the training was that faculty would recognize that pedagogical design is just one component of ensuring success for their students; participants would also learn how technological and access challenges create unnecessary boundaries for their students.

This chapter offers a checklist that enables readers to review access and inclusion strategies in their online course designs. The Further Exploration section draws attention to broader campus efforts, such as the Finding Space podcast, which supports faculty development through narrative-based learning and fosters reflection on disability justice and inclusive teaching practices. We hope that our readers come away with a renewed sense of direction for forefronting accessibility and UDL into their digital course design training and related student services.

These are the key themes addressed in this chapter:

• Inclusive planning, structure, and organization: Provide clear learning objectives, expectations, and pacing upfront for a transparent roadmap for students.

• Essential accessibility for the online learning environment: Design for different abilities, experiences, and ways of engaging with material.

• UDL considerations for adaptable content and activities: Incorporate flexibility into your course to enable more students to reach their full potential.

• Design aspects to reduce access friction: Findability reduces frustration. Scaffolding supports diverse learners. Create a safe place to fail with a tolerance of error.

Scope and Limitation of the Training Module

This is our first iteration of the training site, albeit steeped in many elements from previous faculty development offerings. The chapter highlights that while UDL is a helpful framework, it cannot address all accessibility needs on its own and must be combined with other strategies and the essential accessibility guidelines. It also notes our limitations in measuring accessibility outcomes, raising concerns about the robustness of feedback and long-term tracking. Additionally, the scalability of the training site is uncertain, particularly for larger institutions or those with limited resources. The sustained impact depends on ongoing institutional support and continued professional development.

Literature Review

Benefits for Students

For over a decade, UDL has been a core principle in designing online learning experiences (Altowairiki, 2023; Basham et al., 2016; Bastedo et al., 2013; Elias, 2010; Evmenova, 2018; Rao & Meo, 2016). Reyes et al. (2023) identified four key themes that emerge when successfully incorporating UDL principles into online courses: “accessibility, flexibility, interaction, and collaboration” (p. 379). These four core principles dovetail with the long-established evidence that promoting interactivity and giving students options for their learning can improve students’ learning experiences and outcomes (Cleveland-Innes & Campbell, 2012).

Training Faculty

Meta-analyses, such as those from Cumming and Rose (2022), particularly highlight a consistent trend: UDL not only supports equal opportunities for students to learn, but it also demonstrably improves teachers’ experiences with facilitating instruction. Teacher trainers have also modeled the valuable UDL principles in their development of teacher trainer courses. For example, He (2014) created an online teacher education course with multiple UDL engagements, including “access to learning materials at learners’ own pace” and “the opportunity to explore various instructional technology tools,” with “consistent course organization” (p. 294). Similarly, Sheridan and Gigliotti (2023) designed an online teaching curriculum for college sociology instructors and enacted UDL-informed practices by making “Explicit learning goals for the subject and modules,” and including “a variety of learning tasks, for example, case studies, quizzes, etc” (p. 655). These studies, among others, have suggested positive learning outcomes for these implementations, demonstrating that UDL principles have value both for student and instructor learners.

Alternatively, Amicucci and Argo (2025) created teacher training that incorporated UDL principles specifically to support instructors in making videos for their online courses that were less “text-heavy” and that better incorporated a variety of visual and audio components. They suggested faculty training that specifically narrows the focus of instructor training to ensure that instructors can apply UDL to at least one context in their online courses, even if they do not have the time or capacity to apply UDL across all course content.

Checklists Facilitate UDL Implementation

Yet even with the long-established integration of UDL principles into online courses, many instructors remain unfamiliar with UDL principles and how they can be successfully incorporated into the online course design processes (Black et al., 2014; Bryans Bongey et al., 2010; Diaz-Vega et al., 2020). In response to instructors’ concerns with the time it takes to implement UDL principles, Kathuria and Becker (2021) created a course quality checklist that incorporated UDL and interaction as key components to what instructors might implement into their online courses. While this checklist does not change the end implementation of UDL practices (such as providing a variety of instructional materials in the course and ensuring that course content is accessible by screen reader technology), the checklist format lowers the barrier to implementing relatively simple UDL practices.

Limitations and Tensions in UDL

UDL has, at its core, the ultimate goal of making online course experiences more accessible to online students. Yet even with all of UDL’s evidence-based successes, applying a UDL framework is not a panacea for creating accessible online courses (Oswal & Meloncon, 2014; Rose & Strangman, 2007; Sapp, 2009). Indeed, there are known tensions between UDL and accessibility: there is no single, universal approach to the navigation and access of learning materials that will work for all students, and one student’s accommodation may be another student’s barrier. Choi and Seo (2024) argue that with recent developments in assistive technology (AT), UDL can still be a complementary framework to apply to course design. Specifically, they make the following case:

Even if UDL is successfully implemented, it is extremely difficult to adapt to individual learner needs. In such cases, AT could fill in the gaps and help learners with needs… In serving the whole population of people with and without dis/abilities, UDL perspective provides a purpose for the environment: that is supporting learning for all. AT, which comprises accessibility and usability, support UX [user experience] of the population. The interplay between the two creates inclusive LX [learner experience]. (pp. 939-940)

Choi and Seo’s articulation of “inclusive LX” is useful for higher education instructors insofar as it validates the benefits of UDL, even if UDL implementation is not enough to support all learners, particularly those with disabilities. While instructors may not be able to implement design principles that truly support each and every individual learner, UDL is still important to design into a course at the very beginning so that many major design barriers are anticipated and resolved from the start. Implementing UDL, in short, has the benefit of reducing the need for additional remediation or redesign of instructional content for either student or instructor audiences.

Online Summer Instructor Training Design

The team created the training site for instructors new to online course design or seeking a refresher for redesigning existing online courses. The training specifically targeted instructors building (6-, 8-, or 10-week) online courses for summer sessions, while making the training available to any UCB instructor interested in developing online or hybrid courses. This training was designed for instructors developing their online courses independently with optional consultation support.

This training site was informed by the instructional design team’s previous iterations, including a Remote Instruction Guide (used during the COVID-19 pandemic campus closures), Summer Sessions Instructor and Graduate Student Instructor Training (Canvas-focused online teaching guidance), the Online and Hybrid Course Design Institute, and Accessibility Basics. While these previous iterations of training experiences provided a mixture of synchronous and asynchronous learning for instructors, and all incorporated some principles of UDL and accessibility, none centered principles in the way that the new online summer instructor training described in this particular use case set out to do.

The course objectives for the training site, Strategies for Designing Online Courses (Chambers et al., 2025) include:

1. Identify unique characteristics of online instruction, emphasizing their implications for student learning.

2. Identify effective strategies for designing and delivering online and hybrid courses that foster student engagement and achievement.

3. Develop a structured course map that aligns learning objectives with assessments and activities.

4. Utilize an in-house Canvas template to design a homepage and overall course layout that is organized, accessible, navigable, and welcoming.

Table 1 presents the training site’s course outline, with each lesson on accessibility and UDL highlighted in boldface font. These specific lessons for each module are explained below. In the rest of this section, we will describe the core concepts of each module and how they proactively guide instructors towards incorporating inclusionary practices into their online course design.

Table 1

Strategies for Designing Online Courses: Overview (Chambers et al., 2025)

Course Design Fundamentals Module

This module describes backwards design and establishing course-level objectives (see Figure 1). The module encouraged instructors to consider the diversity of their learners regarding different abilities, experiences, and ways of engaging with the material. The training illustrated how some students might thrive with lectures, while others could struggle to process spoken information, highlighting the need for interactive alternatives.

Figure 1

Module One Overview in the Canvas Modular Pathway

Additionally, the module introduced the UDL framework, clarifying that it is not about adding extra work to course design; rather, it involves thinking ahead to build flexibility into courses for overall student success and to reduce the need for revisions later. The training asked instructors to consider how UDL approaches can make their content and activities more adaptable. The answers to the following questions can help design a course that supports a wider range of learners:

1. Are there multiple ways for students to engage with the material?

2. Are there different ways for students to demonstrate their understanding?

3. Am I removing unnecessary barriers while still challenging students to meet the learning objectives?

For example, instead of only assigning a written essay, instructors might also allow students to create a presentation or record a podcast. These small adjustments are not merely accommodations—they are proactive ways to make courses more inclusive and engaging for everyone. We made these recommendations explicit from the beginning of the training experience so that instructors could think initially about how these options for flexible pathways could be designed from the start.

We emphasized that UDL benefits all students, not just those with disabilities. A student with dyslexia might rely on a text-to-speech tool to access course readings, but so might a busy parent who listens to materials while commuting. By designing for variability from the start, instructors create courses that are more flexible, accessible, and welcoming for all students. Online courses are especially conducive to a UDL approach since they are not limited to traditional classroom constraints. Through technology, materials can be adapted into different formats that meet a variety of student needs, create diverse ways for students to interact with each other, and allow for varied approaches to completing assignments.

Course Content Organization Module

The second module of the training site emphasized how purposeful content organization and well-crafted module-level learning objectives are not merely organizational conveniences but critical accessibility practices grounded in UDL. This module’s focus on structuring content into coherent, clearly sequenced modules emphasized that when instructors create advance organizers, it helps students make sense of the course’s overall arc and understand how each part contributes to their learning journey (CAST, 2024). We aimed to replicate this modular infrastructure within the training course itself so that instructors not just learn about UDL principles in theory, but can also see them implemented in practice and experience these principles as learners themselves. For example, Figure 2 displays the structure used for each module.

Figure 2

Objectives, Road Map, Lessons, and Activities Provided on the Module Page

This module encouraged instructors to think of modules and their objectives as signposts that scaffold learning, reduce cognitive load, and increase transparency. Clear learning objectives at the start of each module inform students exactly what they will learn and why it matters, empowering them to allocate effort strategically. This is particularly valuable for students who may be managing disabilities, language barriers, caregiving responsibilities, or anxiety about navigating unfamiliar learning environments.

A consistent modular format across the course also fosters predictability and confidence. When students know that each module will begin with objectives, followed by readings, activities, and culminating assessments, they can plan their time effectively and move through the course with less uncertainty. Organizing content in this way supports “findability”—students can locate needed materials and assignments without frustration, an important factor linked to motivation and self-efficacy in online learning environments (Simunich et al., 2015).

The module also highlighted how transparent objectives and modular design promote flexibility. By clarifying intended outcomes upfront, instructors give students multiple pathways to engage with content in ways that best align with their strengths and learning preferences. Together, these design elements reduce access barriers and support a broader range of learners. These approaches create courses that are not only more navigable and efficient, but also more welcoming and equitable—environments where students can clearly understand progression pathways and what success will look like.

Assessment and Activities Module

This module guided instructors in designing assessments and activities that serve not only as measures of student learning but as integral components of an inclusive, accessible learning environment. Grounded in UDL, the module emphasized that assessments and learning tasks should be varied, transparent, and structured to reduce barriers for all students.

Instructors are first introduced to the value of providing advance organizers within each unit—short framing texts or visuals that connect prior knowledge to new material, helping students build coherent mental models. Such scaffolding strategies, rooted in Ausubel’s (1963) and West et al. 's (1991) work on subsumption theory, support learners in organizing complex information and prepare them for deeper engagement. Figure 3 presents the module introduction with an advanced organizer from Bree Rosenblum’s (2025) environmental science course, Global Change Biology.

Figure 3

Sample Modular Canvas Course Page for Environmental Biology

The module then highlighted the importance of offering multiple means for students to demonstrate their learning. By proactively designing assessments that include diverse modalities—such as written analyses, video presentations, creative projects, or interactive discussions—instructors accommodate students’ varied strengths, needs, and preferences (CAST, 2024). This flexibility is especially crucial for neurodivergent students and those with disabilities, as traditional assessment formats may pose unnecessary hurdles for these learners.

Equally critical is balancing assignment weights over time. Rather than concentrating a large proportion of a student’s grade on a single high-stakes exam or final project, instructors are encouraged to distribute grading across formative assessments that provide iterative feedback. This approach aligns with mastery learning principles and gives students multiple opportunities to improve, reducing anxiety and fostering persistence. Figure 4 provides a design example of formative assessments from Rosenblum’s (2025) course.

Figure 4

Scaffolded Term Project for Global Change Biology Online Course

Providing clear context for assignments further strengthens accessibility. By supplying explicit instructions, rubrics, exemplars, and non-examples, instructors clarify expectations and minimize ambiguity. This practice is essential for students who may lack background knowledge or who benefit from seeing both successful and problematic approaches.

Taken together, these strategies advance a model of assessment that is both rigorous and responsive. By thoughtfully integrating advanced organizers, varied and balanced assessments, and transparent assignment design, instructors create online courses where all students are positioned to navigate learning expectations with confidence and agency.

Engaging Instructional Content Module

This module underscored that meaningful student engagement in online courses relies on more than content delivery—it hinges on the deliberate design of instructional materials that are both interactive and accessible. By situating engagement within a UDL framework, the module highlighted how diverse, thoughtfully constructed content not only enriches learning but also removes barriers for students with varied needs and contexts.

Instructors were encouraged to employ a mix of asynchronous and synchronous instructional strategies. Asynchronous lectures, often pre-recorded with complementary visuals, afford students flexibility to learn at their own pace—an accommodation in itself for those balancing caregiving, employment, or fluctuating health. Synchronous sessions, by contrast, offer real-time interaction, immediate feedback, and opportunities to build a sense of community, enhancing social and cognitive presence in the online environment. Figure 5 presents the comparison chart used in the training.

Figure 5

Comparison of Synchronous and Asynchronous Lecture Formats

Crucially, the module attended to the accessibility essentials of instructional content. Instructors were guided to use hierarchical headers, provide alternative text for images, ensure descriptive hyperlink text, ensure appropriate color contrast ratio, and avoid using color as the sole means of conveying meaning. We explicitly used Figure 6 to illustrate the location of the heading feature in Canvas. Recommendations extended to selecting sans-serif fonts for readability, checking PDFs for machine-readability, and ensuring all video and audio materials are accurately captioned or transcribed. These practices not only are required by federal accessibility standards, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (US DOE, 1973), but also proactively reduce the need for students to disclose disabilities to access course materials.

Figure 6

Selection of Headings from the Rich Content Editor in Canvas

Additionally, instructors were introduced to campus tools such as Canvas’s integrated Ally accessibility checker, which helps identify and remediate content issues, thereby supporting continuous improvement. By integrating these accessible design practices alongside engaging, multimodal instructional approaches, the module advances the broader objective of creating online learning spaces that are immersive, inclusive, and intentionally welcoming to students.

Building An Online Community Module

This module emphasized that fostering a sense of community is fundamental to effective online learning and is inseparable from the goals of accessibility and inclusion. Drawing on the Community of Inquiry (COI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000), the module highlighted how intentional design can cultivate social, cognitive, and teaching presence, each vital to reducing student isolation and enhancing engagement in online spaces. Social presence involves building interpersonal connections and shared meaning through activities like discussions and collaborative projects (Rogers & Khalsa, 2021). Cognitive presence is developed through learning experiences that require analysis, synthesis, and reflection, while teaching presence encompasses instructor guidance, feedback, and the structuring of learning interactions. Together, these presences foster environments where students feel connected to peers, instructors, and content. Figure 7 presents an exemplary teamwork-based discussion to build an online COI from Leslea Hlusko’s (2020) integrative biology course, Human Biological Variation.

Figure 7

Teamwork Discussion in an Integrative Biology Online Course

The module also incorporated Cleveland-Innes and Campbell’s (2012) concept of emotional presence, which recognizes that students’ emotional engagement shapes how they interact with course materials, classmates, and instructors. Designing courses that attend to learners’ emotional experiences—through supportive feedback, inclusive language, and opportunities for meaningful dialogue—can bolster motivation and persistence.

Importantly, the module situates community-building within a broader commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and social justice. Instructors were encouraged to adopt culturally responsive practices by incorporating diverse perspectives, respecting varied communication styles, and creating assignments that allow students to draw from their cultural knowledge. Instructors were also encouraged to implement equitable assessment strategies, honor lived names and pronouns, and design multiple pathways for participation to accommodate different needs and preferences. Strategies such as flexible deadlines, anonymous discussion options, and proactive outreach to connect students with campus support services further reduce barriers.

Learners take in subtle cues from the learning environment that signal whether they belong (Cheryan et al., 2014). This ambient belonging can affect learner engagement, motivation, and success. Inclusive teaching deliberately cultivates a learning environment where all students have access to learning and feel valued and supported in their learning (Hogan & Viji, 2022). By weaving together the COI framework, emotional presence, and other inclusive pedagogical practices, this module underscored that building an online community is not an optional enhancement—it is a critical element of accessible, equitable, and deeply human-centered online education.

Practice-Based Learning Activity

For our readers to practice the lessons learned from this chapter, the Appendix contains an Online Course Accessibility and Inclusion Checklist for College Instructors. This checklist draws from the lessons in UCB’s instructor training site, Strategies for Designing Online Courses (Chambers et al., 2025). This checklist is intended to serve as a reference for instructors, course developers, and academic support staff to facilitate the incorporation of UDL and accessibility into their course (re)design and planned interactions.

Further Exploration

Beyond the summer sessions online training course, our team has also partnered on developing supplemental resources and programs that continue to center on proactive approaches to accessible instructional design. The following sections detail the complementary initiatives that UCB’s Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) has established, which demonstrate the multivariate ways that approaches to accessibility can be explored. Additionally, this chapter’s endnotes include specific resources and readings that were used in our training site to support inclusionary practices.

Finding Space Podcast

Among the notable accessibility initiatives at UCB, the Finding Space podcast serves as a compelling learning resource that supports faculty development through narrative-based engagement. Developed by Research, Teaching & Learning, Finding Space provides a platform for students, faculty, and staff from the disability community to share their experiences and engage the campus in conversations about disability justice, inclusive pedagogy, and institutional transformation.

Rather than offering procedural training, the podcast fosters reflective learning through authentic storytelling. Listeners hear directly from students about their experiences navigating the university with disabilities, including both challenges and success stories related to instructor support. Faculty guests discuss how their engagement with the Disabled Students’ Program (DSP) and accessibility efforts has reshaped their teaching practices and understanding of classroom equity. These episodes enable institutional leaders to reflect on UCB’s historic and ongoing role in the Disability Rights Movement, linking current initiatives to broader social commitments. Each episode, approximately 25 minutes in length, is designed to be accessible to time-constrained educators while offering meaningful insights into how accessibility and justice can be enacted through teaching. Figure 8 shows the live session for the first podcast episode.

Figure 8

Episode 1: Inclusive Excellence and the UC Berkeley DSP with Carmen Varela

Note. Marisella Rodriguez, Inclusive Teaching Manager; Carmen Varela, Executive Director of DSP; Tara Mason, UDL Consultant.

Faculty workshops are also being introduced to amplify these efforts and drive campus-wide cultural shifts. These workshops invite faculty members to listen to assigned podcast episodes from "Finding Space" and then collectively explore one or two actionable strategies that can be immediately implemented to foster a more inclusive and supportive environment for students with disabilities.

Pop-Up Proctoring Pilot Project

In addition to narrative-based learning initiatives such as the Finding Space podcast, UCB is piloting structural interventions aimed at reducing barriers to assessments. One such initiative is the Pop-Up Proctoring Pilot Project, launched in partnership with the CTL and the Division of Arts and Humanities (A&H). This temporary testing center was developed to support instructors during finals week by offering students with disabilities access to 150% extended time and a reduced-distraction testing environment, the two most commonly approved academic accommodations. See Figure 9 for the temporary signage to indicate the pop-up location.

Figure 9

A&H Pop-Up Proctoring Signage and Proctors

Note. Tracie Allen, Access & Innovation Strategist; Orlando Garcia, Berkeley Language Center Office Manager; Emily Rabiner, Director of Academic Affairs, Division of A&H

The Pop-Up Proctoring Pilot Project was created in response to faculty interest in expanding support structures that promote accessibility in assessments. By streamlining scheduling and providing centralized proctoring services, the program enhances instructors’ capacity to implement accommodations consistently. The initiative addresses systemic barriers by encouraging academic divisions to utilize their own spaces to support students within their home departments. This approach fosters a stronger sense of belonging and signals to students that accessibility is not an exception, but rather an integrated component of the learning environment.

The Pop-Up Proctoring Project also reflects the goals of the Finding Space podcast by helping students with disabilities "find space"—both physically and culturally—during critical moments, such as final exams. By reallocating departmental resources and emphasizing collaboration, the initiative promotes a more inclusive academic culture and reinforces the idea that accessible assessment is a collective, values-driven responsibility.

While still in its early stages, the Pop-Up Proctoring Pilot Project represents a promising model for how academic departments can play an active role in advancing accessibility. By reimagining how and where assessments are delivered and creating inclusive environments during high-stakes testing periods, institutions can reduce systemic barriers and affirm their commitment to equity in learning. Key findings from students (N = 16) and instructors (N = 10) surveyed in the spring project were positive: (A&H, 2025)

1. "Students reported that the center provided a comfortable (93%), quiet (100%), low-distraction (100%) testing environment (p.4)."

2. "100% of students and instructors agreed that accommodation needs were met (p.4)."

3. Staff involved in the project want to extend the pilot to the next academic year, appoint a faculty liaison, and hire a dedicated staff position to coordinate scheduling and proctoring.

As faculty, staff, and campus leaders continue to reflect on and refine their practices, initiatives such as these, along with new faculty workshops, invite all members of the academic community to consider how their roles—whether in course design, classroom instruction, or departmental planning—can contribute to a more accessible and just educational experience for students with disabilities. The work of accessibility is ongoing, and begins with making space in schedules, in classrooms, and in institutional imagination.

Summary

This chapter presents a comprehensive approach to faculty development that positions accessibility and UDL as foundational elements rather than afterthoughts in online course design. UCB's innovative training initiative demonstrates how institutions can systematically embed inclusive practices throughout professional development programs for online instructors. While this case study is situated in the UCB context, the training model and guiding principles can be adapted by institutions of varying sizes through the use of the Online Course Accessibility and Inclusion Checklist and the list of resources provided.

Key Findings and Contributions

Proactive Integration Model

The training's most significant contribution lies in its rejection of accessibility as a separate module or compliance requirement. Instead, UDL principles are woven throughout every aspect of course design—from backward mapping and learning objectives to community building and assessment strategies. This integration ensures that faculty understand accessibility as an essential pedagogical practice rather than an additional burden.

Evidence-Based Framework

Drawing on established research in UDL and online learning, the training addresses the documented gap between UDL's proven benefits and instructors' familiarity with its implementation. While UDL serves as a valuable framework for inclusive design, the training acknowledges that no single approach can address all accessibility needs. The initiative provides practical, actionable strategies that reduce barriers to adoption while maintaining pedagogical rigor and recognizes that UDL works best when combined with other accessibility practices and assistive technologies.

This chapter contributes to the growing body of evidence that UDL implementation requires intentional, systematic approaches rather than piecemeal adoption. However, the training's success should be understood within the context of UDL as one valuable framework among many for promoting accessibility—not as a complete solution to all accessibility challenges. The training's success suggests that when accessibility is positioned as fundamental to good teaching rather than as compliance requirements, faculty are more likely to embrace and implement inclusive practices.

Comprehensive Scaffolding

The seven-module structure guides instructors through a complete course design process with each module building on accessibility principles introduced in previous sections. This scaffolded approach ensures that faculty develop both theoretical understanding and practical skills for creating inclusive online learning environments.

Measuring Impact and Outcomes

While this chapter focuses primarily on training design and implementation, the authors acknowledge important limitations in accessibility measurement. The initiative's impact was assessed through:

1. Adoption metrics (i.e., course enrollment and engagement)
   Preliminary data indicate that instructors used the training site in an à la carte manner, selecting specific modules most relevant to their needs.

2. Instructor feedback (i.e., reflections on site design and accessibility practices)
   To gather feedback, a short survey was sent to over 100 enrolled instructors and supplemented with individual outreach to the most active users. Instructors who responded described the training as "very nicely designed and easy to navigate," with one noting that it served as “a model… for my own courses.” The inclusion of real course examples was cited as particularly impactful in helping instructors reframe their own online activities as “learning experiences.” Feedback also highlighted the usefulness of accessibility guidance, with one instructor commenting that “offering multiple ways for students to engage with content and demonstrate their learning is essential to good teaching and makes for a better class.”

However, the chapter notes that measuring true accessibility outcomes—such as improved student experiences, reduced barriers for students with disabilities, or enhanced learning outcomes—remains challenging and requires longer-term, systematic data collection. The authors acknowledge this as an area for future research and development.

Complementary Initiatives

The chapter highlights complementary initiatives that demonstrate institutional commitment to accessibility:

1. Finding Space Podcast and Workshops: A narrative-based learning resource that uses storytelling to foster a deeper understanding of disability justice and inclusive pedagogy, with opportunities for participants to collaboratively develop more inclusive and supportive environments for their students.

2. Pop-Up Proctoring Pilot Project: A structural intervention that reduces assessment barriers by providing accessible testing environments during high-stakes testing.

These initiatives illustrate how institutions can create multi-layered support systems that address both immediate practical needs and long-term cultural transformation.

Limitations and Future Directions

This chapter acknowledges several important limitations in the current approach:

1. Framework limitations: While UDL provides a valuable lens for inclusive design, it is not a universal solution. The training recognizes that UDL must be complemented by other accessibility practices, assistive technologies, and individualized accommodations to truly serve all learners.

2. Measurement challenges: The initiative would benefit from more robust methods for measuring accessibility outcomes, including systematic feedback from students with disabilities and longitudinal tracking of course accessibility improvements.

3. Scalability questions: The intensive, module-based approach may face challenges when scaled to larger faculty populations or institutions with different resource constraints.

4. Need for ongoing support: The chapter suggests that one-time training, while valuable, requires ongoing institutional support and professional development to sustain meaningful change in teaching practices.

Transparency Statement

This work draws from internal UCB documents, training materials, and institutional practices. The authors were directly involved in designing and implementing the described training initiative, providing an insider perspective on both successes and challenges encountered during implementation.

Author Note

Sandra A. Rogers https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9421-0214

Jenae D. Cohn https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8660-6158

References

A&H Testing Proctoring Pilot Program Report. (2025). University of California, Berkeley.

Altowairiki, N. F. (2023). Universal design for learning infusion in online higher education. Online Learning, 27(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3080

Amicucci, A. N., & Argo, M. (2025). From “Text-heavy slides” to “That image did a lot of the work”: Five faculty transition from text to visuals in online video instruction. Computers and Composition, 75, 102917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102917

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Grune & Stratton.

Basham, J. D., Smith, S. J., & Satter, A. L. (2016). Universal design for learning: Scanning for alignment in K–12 blended and fully online learning materials. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416660836

Bastedo, K., Sugar, A., Swenson, N., & Vargas, J. (2013). Programmatic, systematic, automatic: An online course accessibility support model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(3), 87–102. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/154171/

Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. (2014). Universal design for instruction and learning: A pilot study of faculty instructional methods and attitudes related to students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education International, 24(1), 48-64.

Bryans Bongey, S., Cizadlo, G., & Kalnbach, L. (2010). Blended solutions: Using a supplemental online course site to deliver universal design for learning (UDL). Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741011011246

CAST. (2024). Universal design for learning guidelines (Version 3.0). CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org

Chambers, T., Cohn, J. D., Farivar, R., Gomas, C. A., & Kearns, J. J., Rogers, S. A. (2025). Strategies for designing online courses [Training site]. Canvas. University of California, Berkeley.

Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Plaut, V. C., Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). Designing classrooms to maximize student achievement. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences,1(1), 4-12. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2372732214548677

Choi, G., & Seo, J. (2024). Accessibility, usability, and universal design for learning: Discussion of three key LX/UX elements for inclusive learning design. TechTrends 68, 936–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00987-6

Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1234

Cumming, T. M., & Rose, M. C. (2022). Exploring universal design for learning as an accessibility tool in higher education: A review of the current literature. The Australian Educational Researcher, 49(5), 1025–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00471-7

Diaz-Vega, M., Moreno-Rodriguez, R., & Lopez-Bastias, J. L. (2020). Educational inclusion through the universal design for learning: Alternatives to teacher training. Education Sciences, 10(11), 303. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110303

Elias, T. (2010). Universal instructional design principles for Moodle. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(2). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/869/1575

Evmenova, A. (2018). Preparing teachers to use universal design for learning to support diverse learners. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(2), 147–171. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/181969/

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

He, Y. (2014). Universal design for learning in an online teacher education course: Enhancing learners’ confidence to teach online. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283-298. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no2/he_0614.pdf

Hlusko, L. (2020). Human biological variation [course]. Canvas. University of California, Berkeley.

Hogan, K. A., & Viji, S. (2022). Inclusive Teaching: Strategies for promoting equity in the college classroom. West Virginia University Press.

Kathuria, H., & Becker, D. W. (2021). Leveraging course quality checklist to improve online courses. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v10i1.31253

Oswal, S. K., & Meloncon, L. (2014). Paying attention to accessibility when designing online courses in technical and professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28(3), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651914524780

Moore, S. L. (2007). [Review of Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning, by D. H. Rose & A. Meyer]. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 521-525. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30220506

Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-based lessons. SAGE Open, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016680688

Reyes, J. I., Meneses, J., & Xavier, M. (2023). Suitability of online higher education for learners with disabilities: The students’ voices. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(3), 370–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434221131772

Rogers, S. A., & Khalsa, G. K. (2021). Analyses of online course syllabi for planned interactions and learner support. In J. Hoffman & P. Blessinger (Eds.), International Perspectives in Online Instruction (Vol. 40, pp. 125–141). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120210000040009

Rose, D. H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal design for learning: Meeting the challenge of individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(4), 381–391. https://doi-org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/10.1007/s10209-006-0062-8

Rosenblum, E. B. (2025). Global change biology [course]. Canvas. University of California, Berkeley.

​​Sapp, W. (2009). Universal design: Online educational media for students with disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103(8), 495–500. https://doi-org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/10.1177/0145482X0910300807

Sheridan, L., & Gigliotti, A. (2023). Designing online teaching curriculum to optimise learning for all students in higher education. The Curriculum Journal, 34(4), 651–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.208

Simunich, B., Robins, D. B., & Kelly, V. (2015). The impact of findability on student motivation, self-efficacy, and perceptions of online course quality. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2015.1058604

The Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design (Version 2.0). North Carolina State University. https://design.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/principles-of-universal-design.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (1973). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/section-504-rehabilitation-act-of-1973

West, C. K., Farmer, J. A., & Wolff, P. M. (1991). Instructional design: Implications from cognitive science. Prentice Hall.

Resources

The following resources were also used in our training site:

1. About Backward Design | Jerod Quinn

2. Alternatives to Traditional Testing | UC Berkeley

3. Assessment Rubrics | UC Berkeley

4. Building Inclusive Classrooms | UC Berkeley

5. Create and Verify PDF Accessibility | Adobe

6. Design Effective Assessments | UC Berkeley

7. Establishing Course Level Objectives | UC Berkeley

8. Formative and Summative Assessments | Yale University

9. Headings | UC Berkeley

10. Inclusive Course Design | The Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning | Harvard

11. Instructor Guide to DSP Accommodations | UC Berkeley

12. Iterative and Incremental Assignments for Deeper Learning | Northeastern University

13. Online Discussions | UC Berkeley

14. Summative and Formative Assessments | Indiana University

15. Web Accessibility Basics | UC Berkeley

16. Working with Students in Groups | UC Berkeley

Additional Readings

The following readings were also used in our training site:

1. Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2010). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v14i1.1636

2. Chen, K., & Jang, S. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011

3. El Galad, A., Betts, D. H., & Campbell, N. (2024). Flexible learning dimensions in higher education: Aligning students’ and educators’ perspectives for more inclusive practices. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1347432. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1347432

4. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

5. Holeton, R. (2020). Toward inclusive learning spaces: Physiological, cognitive, and cultural inclusion and the Learning Space Rating System. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/2/toward-inclusive-learning-spaces

6. Kruiper, S. M. A., Leenknecht, M. J. M., & Slof, B. (2021). Using scaffolding strategies to improve formative assessment practice in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(3), 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1927981

Appendix

Online Course Accessibility and Inclusion Checklist for College Instructors

This checklist is designed to help instructors review and improve the accessibility and inclusivity of their online courses, grounded in the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework and best practices in accessible course design. [This is not a comprehensive list, but it serves as a reminder of various course design aspects to consider. Contact your campus accessibility liaison to ensure your course meets the latest Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines.]

UDL Principles

1. Provide multiple means of representation (different ways to present information).

2. Offer multiple means of action and expression (different ways for students to demonstrate learning).

3. Create multiple means of engagement (different ways to motivate and involve students).

4. Remove unnecessary barriers while maintaining high expectations and learning objectives. (See possible barriers implied and how to ameliorate them in the sections below.)

Course Structure and Organization

1. The course is organized into clear, consistent modules with stated learning objectives at the start of each module.

2. Each module includes an advanced organizer that connects prior knowledge to new content.

3. Navigation is intuitive, with materials, assignments, and resources easy to locate.

4. Learning objectives are transparent, actionable, and accessible to all students.

5. All deadlines, grading schemes, and participation expectations are clearly communicated.

Course Design and Content Accessibility

1. All documents, pages, and presentations use hierarchical headers (Heading 1, Heading 2, etc.) for structure.

2. Images include concise, descriptive alternative (alt) text.

3. Hyperlinks use descriptive text (e.g., “Center for Teaching and Learning” instead of “click here”).

4. Color is not the sole means of conveying information; strong color contrast is maintained (minimum 4.5:1 for text).

5. Sans-serif fonts (e.g., Arial, Calibri, Verdana) are used for online text.

6. Course material (e.g., PDFs, MS Word documents, PowerPoints) is checked for accessibility.

7. All videos are accurately captioned, and audio files have transcripts.

8. Avoid all-caps, excessive italics, and underlining (except for links).

9. Avoid unnecessary blank spaces.

10. Use tables for actual data, not for layout. Identify table headers and provide a caption in the design tab.

Assessment and Assignment Design

1. Assessments and assignments offer multiple ways for students to demonstrate learning (e.g., written, audio, video, graphic illustrations, performance-based).

2. Assignments provide students with choice (e.g., questions, topics, projects) or alternative formats that align with the intended learning outcome.

3. Use a variety of assessment types (formative and summative) and avoid heavily weighted final assessments.

4. Provide clear rubrics, exemplars, non-examples, and multiple means of guidance (video, written, checklists).

5. Allow for practice, multiple attempts, and tolerance of error in assignments and quizzes.

6. Group work and peer feedback opportunities are included to foster collaboration and informal learning.

7. Provide flexible deadlines when possible.

Inclusive Teaching and Community Building

1. Course materials reflect diverse perspectives, authors, and cultural viewpoints.

2. Inclusive language is used throughout; lived names and pronouns are respected.

3. Assignments allow students to draw from their cultural knowledge and experiences.

4. There is a balance of planned interactions to build an online community of inquiry with social, cognitive, and teaching presence.

5. Opportunities for connection, peer support, and cross-cultural dialogue are built into the course.

6. Anonymous participation options are available when appropriate.

7. Early warning systems and multiple channels for support are in place to help struggling students.

Accessibility Tools and Statements

1. Accessibility tools (e.g., Ally) are enabled and used to check and remediate course materials.

2. The syllabus includes an accessibility statement and instructions for requesting accommodations.

3. Students are informed about available alternative formats and accessibility resources.

4. A reminder statement regarding accommodations is provided in the description of the first quiz.

Continuous Improvement

1. Solicit student feedback (welcome survey, mid-semester check-in, final reflection) to identify barriers and improve inclusivity.

2. Regularly review and update course materials for accessibility and inclusivity.

3. Consult with campus disability services and accessibility experts as needed.