Co-designing inclusive excellence in higher education: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives on the ideal online learning environment using the I-TPACK model

The study addresses the persistent gap between the ideals of inclusive education and their implementation in higher education. Despite policy efforts and frameworks, inclusive practices—especially in online contexts—remain uneven and under-researched at the HE level. Barriers span teacher-related, institutional, and societal domains, and the rapid expansion of online modalities since COVID-19 has exposed digital divides and challenges in access, engagement, and pedagogy. This research seeks to understand how university teachers and students conceptualize an ideal, inclusive online learning environment (LE), using the I-TPACK model to frame inclusive integration of technology, pedagogy, and content. The central research question is: How do university students and teachers characterize their ideal, inclusive online learning environment?

The theoretical framing draws on Göransson and Nilholm’s definition of an inclusive environment as one providing accommodations and supports for all learners without labeling, and extends inclusion to online LEs as ensuring access via digital resources. Barriers to inclusion cluster as teacher-related (attitudes, skills), institutional (resources), and societal (cultural norms). Online delivery modes vary along a spectrum (face-to-face, hybrid, online traditional, HyFlex), each with trade-offs for different students and pedagogies. Research post-COVID identifies digital inequalities and mixed outcomes for engagement, completion, and well-being. Inclusive online education benefits from frameworks such as TPACK, UDL, and Community of Inquiry; the I-TPACK model augments TPACK with an explicit inclusion dimension that emphasizes teacher awareness of inclusion/exclusion, positionality, barriers, collaboration, and diverse content. I-TPACK outlines six guidelines: (1) develop awareness and self-reflection; (2) get to know and adapt to student needs; (3) diversify pedagogical practices and ensure accessibility; (4) diversify content; (5) create an inclusive digital learning climate; and (6) collaborate with organizational allies. These offer a holistic roadmap for inclusive online LEs in HE.

Design: Qualitative, exploratory study using homogeneous focus groups (FGs) with HE teachers and students to co-construct perspectives on ideal inclusive online LEs, guided by the I-TPACK framework. Sampling and participants: Stratified random sampling targeted gender balance and all 10 faculties at one university (Architecture & Arts, Medicine & Life Sciences, Industrial Engineering Sciences, Rehabilitation Sciences, Educational Studies, Social Sciences, Law, Mobility Sciences, Business Economics, and Sciences). Invitations were sent to 60 teachers and 60 students; 29 teachers and 18 students expressed interest; 25 teachers and 12 students participated. This aimed to enhance transferability across disciplines. Data collection: Five FGs (three with teachers, two with students) were held on campus between March and May 2023, with 6–8 participants per group. Sessions lasted approximately 3 hours each, continuing until thematic saturation. A structured mind map instrument, grounded in I-TPACK and complementary literature (e.g., Schneider & Preckel; Tinto & Engle; Tuitt et al.), scaffolded discussion around why/what/how/roles/terms, teaching practice, curriculum, community, and infrastructure. An Appreciative Inquiry approach was used, including exercises to design an ideal inclusive LE, test designs against realistic scenarios for diverse student populations, and reflect on key takeaways. A pilot study refined the mind map, facilitation, and logistics. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim; selected Dutch quotes were translated to English using DeepL. Data analysis: Reflexive thematic analysis per Braun and Clarke (2022) was conducted using NVivo 14. A combined deductive–inductive approach used the six I-TPACK guidelines to code data, then iteratively developed, reviewed, defined, and reported themes. The six phases included familiarization, coding aligned with I-TPACK principles, theme generation, review, definition, and write-up. Ethics: Approved by UHasselt Social Ethics Committee. Written informed consent obtained. Data remain confidential. Quality: Reporting followed COREQ (32-item) to support transparency and rigor.

Findings are organized by the I-TPACK guidelines.

1. Awareness and self-reflection: Almost three-quarters of teachers reported uncertainty and discomfort with inclusive measures (e.g., Universal Design, fair assessment, reasonable accommodations like extra exam time). Over three-quarters indicated gaps in cultural knowledge and adaptability to diverse needs and communication styles (e.g., interacting with introverted, autistic, or religiously observant students). Almost all advocated substantially longer, more intensive professional development in cultural awareness and inclusive communication. About three-quarters acknowledged unconscious language-related biases, noting risks of unfair evaluation for non-native speakers.
2. Knowing and adapting to student needs: More than half of both groups highlighted barriers such as unequal access to technology, unstable internet, and logistical constraints for online evaluation and support. Participants called for more study spaces with reliable internet, loaner laptops, recording studios, and 24/7 IT support (especially for international and evening cohorts). Three-quarters of students (and no teachers) emphasized the need for clearer, ongoing feedback and diverse evaluation formats to monitor progress and sustain engagement; students reported discouragement when feedback was limited to end-of-term exams. Students and some teachers advocated greater curricular flexibility (e.g., cross-faculty electives) to support diverse learning preferences and interdisciplinary exposure.
3. Diversifying pedagogical practices and accessibility: Over half of students preferred flexible, self-paced learning with recorded lectures (knowledge clips), aligning study schedules with personal/work obligations. All groups debated online versus offline delivery. Over three-quarters of teachers (and a minority of students) worried recordings could encourage procrastination and inflate perceived study load. Teachers raised ethical and workload concerns about flipping/recording and individualized flexibility (e.g., multiple exam options), seeking boundaries to protect staff well-being and course integrity. Approximately three-quarters across groups questioned fairness if accommodations are universally applied, emphasizing maintaining academic standards and aligning degree expectations with the workfield.
4. Diversifying content: Less than half supported greater diversity in content voices and perspectives (e.g., names, images, examples) to reflect cultural pluralism. More than half resisted changing core content, arguing basic scientific subjects are culturally neutral and should prioritize content quality. About half recognized education cannot be fully separated from culture and supported discussion of cultural dominance while expecting acculturation to host norms. Students across discussions strongly called for more hands-on learning, external speakers (industry, certified teachers), internships, and varied examples beyond instructors’ own research to broaden perspectives.
5. Inclusive digital learning climate (belonging and agency): All participants emphasized the role of a vibrant, accessible campus (e.g., social spaces, green areas, sports/cafés, inclusive events) in fostering community and inclusion for all, including students with disabilities. Over three-quarters requested a single, integrated, user-friendly electronic platform for learning, social engagement, and communication (e.g., easy contact with teachers/peers, read receipts, presence indicators). Both groups stressed the importance of physical presence—especially at program start—to mitigate isolation and support social bonding. Over three-quarters of students requested more interactive, engaging in-person activities (active learning, complex group tasks) to justify attendance. Many participants valued teacher approachability, authenticity, and egalitarian communication to build trust. Nearly all favored semester-long integration activities (mentoring, study tours) rather than front-loaded orientation.
6. Collaborating with organizational allies: All groups underscored shared responsibility for inclusion, advocating collaboration among teachers with diverse profiles, study counselors, and senior students (e.g., crediting peer mentoring). Almost all participants were unclear on institutional resources, policies, and responsibilities, requesting clearer guidance, better communication, and adequate funding/time for online flexibility and professional learning. Nearly three-quarters urged more institutional investment tied to inclusive goals. Participants critiqued existing feedback channels as unresponsive, calling for open, effective institutional feedback mechanisms. Overall, participants saw strong inclusion potential in online LEs but noted limited preparation, shared language, and practical guidance for implementation. They advocated balanced, feasible practices that uphold academic standards while addressing diverse needs.

The findings illuminate how teachers and students conceptualize an ideal inclusive online LE through the I-TPACK lens. First, inclusive teaching support (awareness, self-reflection, and targeted professional development) is indispensable, yet current capacities and a shared language of inclusion are lacking. Second, flexible infrastructure and technology—reliable internet, equipment access, recording facilities, and extended IT support—are foundational for inclusive online provision. Third, a balanced, adaptive pedagogy is needed: flexible, self-directed online elements should be counterbalanced with structured, interactive on-campus activities to prevent procrastination, support soft-skill development, and maintain academic standards. Fourth, participants favored limited content diversification (e.g., examples, visuals) rather than altering disciplinary cores, reflecting tensions between cultural responsiveness and disciplinary universality. Fifth, belonging and agency hinge on both physical campus vibrancy and an integrated digital ecosystem that supports communication and community. Sixth, effective inclusion requires multilevel collaboration and clear institutional policies, recognition, and resourcing; current policy/practice misalignments impede progress. Collectively, these findings respond to the research question by specifying conditions, practices, and organizational supports necessary for inclusive online LEs in HE. They emphasize moving beyond ad hoc accommodations toward coherent, context-sensitive strategies guided by I-TPACK.

Teachers and students envision inclusive online learning as a careful balance: flexible digital learning integrated with robust offline community-building and interactive pedagogy. While the I-TPACK model offers a practical framework, participants expressed greater comfort with inclusive practices in face-to-face contexts and uncertainty about translating inclusion online. Recommendations include institutionally supported, longitudinal professional development on inclusion (e.g., UDL, cultural awareness, unconscious bias, diversification of teaching and assessment, equitable ICT use), clear guidelines that protect academic standards while enabling responsiveness, improved infrastructure and unified digital platforms, and cross-faculty curricular flexibility with real-world engagement (speakers, internships). Policies should create a common language of inclusion across faculties, recognize and reward inclusive teaching, and provide time/resources to implement change. The I-TPACK model can scaffold these improvements and help normalize inclusive practices as excellent education for all.

Although stratified sampling targeted gender and all faculties, the study did not purposively include specific student subgroups (e.g., visual impairments, socially vulnerable, international students), which may bias perspectives. The student sample was relatively small, and teacher participation exceeded student participation, potentially skewing views. Further disaggregation of small subgroups could compromise data integrity. As qualitative research centered on meaning-making, findings reflect participant subjectivities and institutional context, which may limit generalizability. Data are confidential due to privacy constraints.