Inclusive Teaching
Inclusive Teaching Practices and Correlates: Where Are We At? Why Should We Care? What Can We Do?
Anjana Balakrishnan and Misha Turychenko
The Canadian higher education sector is host to an increasingly diverse student body. Per recent statistics highlighted on Universities Canada (n.d.), approximately four in 10 students are racialized, approximately one in five have a disability, and over an eighth are those who identify with the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. Inclusive practices (e.g., creating and revisiting classroom norms reflective of diversity) are being employed across various subject areas (e.g., Science and Education; Jackson-Summers et al., 2024). However, there is a continued need for pedagogy that accounts for the diverse needs and experiences of students, such as curricula that engages with all students (Jackson-Summers et al., 2024). Teaching in a way that is anti-oppressive (e.g., via curricular modification or teaching to all, Albornoz, 2022; Kumashiro, 2000) has several benefits including enhanced student engagement and student well-being (Centre for Innovation in Campus Mental Health, 2024). Teaching of this nature, while beneficial across student groups, is highly important for students from equity-seeking and underserved groups who may have faced negative classroom experiences or barriers to learning (Queen’s University, Faculty of Education, 2024)
Anti-oppressive teaching goes beyond teaching in a way that is inclusive and takes into account diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations (Kumashiro, 2000; MacPherson Institute, n.d.). Additionally, inclusive pedagogies can be defined as practices, engaged in by course instructors, related to justice and equity which give all learners the chance to demonstrate achievement of learning outcomes (Page, 2021). The focus of the paper is researching student perceptions about the extent to which university faculty are incorporating explicit DEI and inclusive teaching practices, and this topic is relevant for a number of reasons. Firstly, within the higher education literature base, some current considerations include Indigenizing and decolonizing higher education, DEI, and internationalization (Jones et al., 2020). Secondly, at the institutional level, DEI is integral to the priorities of Canadian universities (Universities Canada, 2023). In further support of this assertion, a key area of focus identified by leaders at Teaching and Learning Centres across several Canadian postsecondary institutions is DEI and accessibility (EDIA; Kenny et al., 2025). As just one illustration of the encouragement of such teaching at the program level, within Psychology, there is research outlining how to include Indigenous content into courses (Wilbiks, 2021), and there are also justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI) resources posted on the Canadian Psychological Association (n.d.) webpage.
For this research, Valdez and Kelp (2023) was used as a template to frame research questions and guide data analyses. Whereas Valdez and Kelp (2023) focused on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) instructors, this research is focused on instructors more broadly. A key finding from Valdez and Kelp (2023) was that inclusive instructional practices were being observed at a greater frequency than explicitly DEI practices. Also, of the various practices, providing adequate structure for homework, providing rubrics for assignments, and sharing pronouns in class or email were most frequently observed (Valdez & Kelp, 2023). In contrast, students reported that practices such as asking for student feedback about classroom inclusivity and addressing harm from microaggressions in the classroom were observed less frequently. Both inclusive teaching practices and explicit DEI practices were most frequently described as being seen some of the time with some instructors (Valdez & Kelp, 2023). A final notable finding is that when Valdez and Kelp (2023) compared students of colour with White students, the latter group observed explicit DEI practices to a greater extent. Taken together, these findings indicate that the perception of inclusive teaching practices vary by practice, by frequency, and are observed differentially across student groups.
Other researchers (e.g., Brito et al., 2025; Smith, 2020) have also focused on student perceptions of and group differences in inclusive teaching. International students represent one specific group of students for whom using promising practices, such as creating an inclusive learning environment, can lend to student satisfaction and retention (Smith, 2020). Comparative work by Brito et al. (2025) has shown that both local and international students mention social integration and intercultural interaction as relevant for inclusion. However, international students report a greater need for personalized support (e.g., “more attention from teachers and greater inclusion in class activities”, Brito et al., 2025, p. 179). Also, in line with Kumashiro (2000), Shane-Simpson et al.’s (2025) participants discussed how inclusive teaching can be beneficial to everyone. However, they placed emphasis on how certain groups, such as students with disabilities could benefit to a greater extent (Shane-Simpson et al., 2025). Participants further commented on how in addition to instructor actions, classmate behaviours can also contribute to perceived classroom inclusiveness.
Collecting student data (e.g., about preference or satisfaction) via surveys is a common practice in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) literature, and a key area of focus is on which teacher activities are effective (Manarin et al., 2021). Additionally, SoTL studies often use mixed methods research designs which incorporate both qualitative and quantitative elements (Divan et al., 2017). Although less observed, SWOT-style approaches (i.e., strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) are being employed in SoTL-aligned studies (e.g., Safonov et al., 2021). This research investigation employed a SWOT-inspired mixed methods design (i.e., via an online survey using self-report questionnaires and qualitative open-ended text box responses) to explore undergraduate student perceptions of faculty teaching practices and correlates. The overarching aim of this research project was to contribute to SoTL at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, a teaching-centric university, which emphasizes internationalization and Indigenization as part of its academic plan (Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2023). The two research questions addressed are as follows:
- To what extent do KPU students perceive faculty as engaging in practices which are inclusive and in line with JEDI (i.e., explicit DEI practices), how do these relate with correlates (e.g., student commitment), and are there differences in perception between student groups (e.g., international as compared to non-international)?
- What do KPU students perceive as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in relation to how inclusive and anti-oppressive they consider their instruction is at the university?
Project findings for the above-mentioned research questions will be used to answer the following three practical questions in the discussion section of this paper: a) Where are we at? b) Why should we care? and c) What can we do?
Method
Participants
297 responses (i.e., potential participants) were collected on the Qualtrics survey hosting platform. Participant exclusions were made for the following reasons: incomplete surveys, NO as a response to consent request, missing information across key study questionnaires (e.g., University Commitment Scale), failed eligibility check (i.e., had not completed at least one semester of undergraduate study at the time of taking the survey), incorrect responses on both the attention check questions used, completion time concerns, and response bias (e.g., straight line responding). After all exclusion criteria was applied, data from 211 participants remained for use in quantitative analysis. A stringent approach was taken to data cleaning given that doing so has been shown to increase data quality and assist with avoiding bias (Sharifnia et al., 2026). Details regarding the heterogenous demographic profile of the sample are provided in the Appendix (see Tables 1-3).
Measures
Inclusive Teaching Scale. A measure of teaching practices, hereafter Inclusive Teaching Scale, by Valdez and Kelp (2023) was adapted for use in this study.1 Participants reviewed a series of 11 items, and for each item, they selected an option from a 5-point scale (end points were “Never” and “All of the time with all instructors”) that described their overall experiences at KPU. The first five items on the scale concern inclusive instructional practices (e.g., How often do you observe instructors at KPU providing rubrics for homework, papers, or other assignments?). The remaining six items are focused on explicit DEI practices (e.g., How often do you observe instructors at KPU explicitly mentioning their intentions for inclusivity in the classroom?).
University Commitment Scale. To measure university commitment, Rothwell et al.’s (2008) 7-item University Commitment scale was adapted for use. Participants indicated the degree to which they felt each statement was true by using a 5-point scale wherein the endpoints were “Strongly Disagree” and “Strongly Agree”. A sample item on the scale is as follows: I am proud to tell others that I am at this university.
University Attachment Scale. To measure university attachment, France et al.’s (2010) 9-item scale was adapted for use. The scale measures an individual’s attachment to the university (n = 6 items) separately from attachment to university members (n = 3 items). Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale, and each item had different response options. A commonality across options is that the endpoint numbered 1 corresponded with a lower or infrequent option (e.g., “Not at All” or “Never”), and the endpoint numbered 5 corresponded with a higher or more frequent option (e.g., “Extremely” or “Always”). A sample item on the scale is as follows: How important is belonging to Kwantlen Polytechnic University to you?
Attention Check Questions. The following attention check questions were presented to participants to identify if they were paying attention and to assist in data cleaning: a) This is an attention check, please select the option “Never” and b) Please select “Strongly Agree” to show you are paying attention to this question.
Open-Ended Qualitative Questions. Four open-ended questions were generated for use in this research. These questions were about threats, weaknesses, strengths and opportunities related to inclusive teaching at KPU. The wording of the qualitative research questions is as follows:
- What do you think are the strengths related to inclusive teaching practices at Kwantlen Polytechnic University? (i.e., What works?)
- What you think are the weaknesses related to inclusive teaching practices at Kwantlen Polytechnic University? (i.e., What does not work?)
- What opportunities can be taken to better inclusive teaching practices at Kwantlen Polytechnic University? (i.e., What more can be done?)
- What do you think are the threats that could negatively affect use of inclusive teaching practices at Kwantlen Polytechnic University? (i.e., What might be barriers?)
These four questions were used to get qualitative feedback that could be used to gather SWOT-analysis type feedback from participants.
Demographic information. Several questions were presented to participants to gather demographic information. Participants were asked to offer details about whether they had completed at least one full semester of undergraduate study, (to verify eligibility), age, gender identity, 2SLGBTQIA+ community membership, ethnicity, year of undergraduate study, if they are a Psych major, part-time versus full-time status, international student status, if they have a disability or medical condition which could interfere with their studies or for which they would need an accommodation, if they are a first-generation student, nature of course load, and format of courses2. A wide range of demographic details were collected to enable exploratory analysis and to support further research studies as outlined in the consent form.
Procedure
Undergraduate students from Kwantlen Polytechnic University enrolled in the Psychology Participant Pool (SONA) were eligible to sign up for the study. Data was collected over the Fall 2024 semester. Participants reviewed a brief description of the study posted to SONA and used the provided Qualtrics link to access the study. On Qualtrics, participants reviewed a detailed consent form in which details about what the research entails, benefits, risks, rationale, compensation, and other pertinent details (e.g., consent for use of direct quotes) were provided. Consenting participants were asked to give responses to the following measures: Inclusive Teaching Scale (Valdez & Kelp, 2023), the University Attachment Scale (France et al., 2010), the University Commitment Scale (Rothwell et al., 2008), two attention check questions, and a series of demographic questions. They were also requested to answer four open-ended questions about strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to inclusive teaching at KPU. Upon completion of the study, participants were thanked for their time and given compensation in the form of 1.0 SONA research credits.
Results
Quantitative Results
Data Analytic Strategy. The Inclusive Teaching Scale was treated as ordinal (values ranging from 1-5) to enable relative observation of each teaching practice by students and to conduct t-tests and linear regressions. The measure was treated as nominal/categorical (labels as follows: Never, Some of the time with some instructors, Some of the time with all instructors, All of the time with some instructors, All of the time with all instructors) for chi-square analysis. To support data visualization, bidirectional coordinates (0,0 corresponding with Never to 2,2 corresponding with All of the time with all instructors) were used. All these decisions are consistent with the approach used by Valdez and Kelp (2023).
Extent to which Inclusive Instructional Practices and Explicit DEI Practices are Observed. The relative observation of each instructional practice is presented in Figure 1. The most frequently observed practices include providing opportunities for students to interact and providing adequate structure for homework and the least frequently observed practices include sharing own identities and lived experiences as well as mentioning intentions for inclusivity in the classroom. Chi-square analysis enabled comparison of the proportion of instructors using inclusive pedagogy and frequency of use of those instructors of inclusive pedagogy across the different practice types, χ2 (4, N = 422) = 87.71, p < .001, V = .46.3 Students noted that instructors used inclusive instructional practices to a greater extent than explicit DEI practices (see Figures 1 and 2).
Data visualizations corresponding with inclusive instructional practices (Figure 3) and explicit DEI practices (Figure 4) illustrate that some instructors are using DEI practices, such as responding to microaggressions in the classroom, either some or all of the time. Additionally, a sizeable proportion of students reported that all instructors are using inclusive practices, such as providing adequate structure for activities in class, at least some of the time.
Inclusive Teaching, University Commitment and University Attachment Relationships. Three multiple regressions were conducted to determine if inclusive teaching predicts (a) university group attachment, (b) university member attachment, and (c) university commitment respectively. Inclusive teaching explained 18% of the variance (R2 = .18, F(1,209) = 44.63, β =.42, p <.001) in university attachment at the group level. 15% of the variance in university attachment at the member level was explained by inclusive teaching (R2 = .15, F(1,209) = 35.91, β =.38, p <.001). As for university commitment, 17% of the variance was explained by inclusive teaching (R2 = .17, F(1,209) = 43.02, β =.41, p <.001).
Group-Level Comparisons. For each of the three key scales (i.e., Inclusive Teaching Scale, University Attachment Scale, and University Commitment Scale), t-tests were conducted to compare differences between the following groups: international student or not, 2SLGBTQIA+ or not, disability/medical condition or not, first generation student or not, part-time student or full-time student, Psychology major or not. Additionally, for the international student comparison as well as the Psychology major comparison, simple linear regressions were conducted to determine if there were any differences in the prediction of university commitment and university attachment by inclusive teaching at the group level. Analyses conducted were primarily exploratory in nature.5
International Student Comparison. Students answered either Yes or No to the question: “I am registered at KPU as an international student.” Those who selected Yes (M = 37.73) reported significantly higher ratings on the Inclusive Teaching Scale (ITS) than those who selected No (M = 33.79, t(209) = 2.95, p = .004, d = .54). International students (M = 24.68) did not significantly differ on the University Commitment Scale (UCS) from non-international students (M =23.16, t(209) = 1.53, p = .127, d = .28). Significant differences were noted between international (M = 7.89) and non-international students (M = 6.63) on the University Attachment Scale at the member level, t(209) = 2.56, p = .011, d = .46. Similarly, differences between international (M = 20.00) and non-international students (M =17.01) were also found for university attachment at the group level, t(209) = 2.56, p = 0.011, d = .54.
To determine if inclusive teaching is a stronger predictor of university attachment at the member level, university attachment at the group level, and university commitment for international students than for non-international students, three simultaneous multiple regressions were run (see Appendix, Table 4).
21% of the variance in university attachment at the group level was explained by the inclusive teaching model tested (R2 =.21, F(3,207) = 18.77, p < .001), and an interaction effect between international student status and inclusive teaching ratings was detected (see Figure 5). 18% of the variance in university attachment at the member level was explained by the inclusive teaching model tested (R2 =.18, F(3,207) = 14.87, p < .001), and an interaction effect between international student status and inclusive teaching ratings was detected (see Figure 6). 18% of the variance in university commitment was explained by the inclusive teaching model tested (R2 =.18, F(3,207) = 15.39, p < .001).
Program of Study Comparison. Students answered either Yes or No to the question “Are you a Psychology major?” Those who selected Yes (M = 34.33) did not differ significantly on Inclusive Teaching Scale (ITS) ratings as compared to those who selected No (M = 34.90, t(209) = -.48, p = .629, d = -.08. Psychology majors (M = 23.10) did not significantly differ on the University Commitment Scale (UCS) from non-Psychology majors (M =24.28, t(209) = -1.38, p = .169, d = -.21. Psychology majors (M = 17.12) also did not significantly differ from non-Psychology majors (M =18.67, t(209) = -1.79, p = .08, d = -.28) on university attachment at the group level. Psychology majors (M = 6.77) did not significantly differ from non-Psychology majors (M =7.09, t(82.55) =-.67, p = .504, d = -.12) on university attachment at the member level. Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F= 8.37, p = .004) resulting in an adjustment to degrees of freedom from 209 to 82.55 for this comparison.
To determine if inclusive teaching is a stronger predictor of university attachment at the member level, university attachment at the group level, and university commitment for Psychology majors as compared to non-Psychology majors, three simultaneous multiple regressions were run (see Appendix, Table 5). 19% of the variance in university attachment at the group level was explained by the inclusive teaching model tested (R2 =.19, F(3,207) = 16.24, p < .001). 15% of the variance in university attachment at the member level was explained by the inclusive teaching model tested (R2 =.15, F(3,207) = 12.43, p < .001). 18% of the variance in university commitment was explained by the inclusive teaching model tested (R2 =.19, F(3,207) = 15.28, p < .001).
2SLGBTQIA+ Comparison.
Students answered either Yes or No to the question “I self-identify as a member of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.”. Those who selected Yes (M = 30.77) had lower scores on Inclusive Teaching Scale (ITS) ratings as compared to those who selected No (M = 35.32, t(209) = -.3.52, p <.001, d = -.62). 2SLGBTQIA+ students (M = 22.18) did not significantly differ on the University Commitment Scale (UCS) from non-2SLGBTQIA+ students (M =23.70, t(209) = -1.57, p = .119, d = -.28). 2SLGBTQIA+ students (M = 15.28) differed significantly from non-2SLGBTQIA+ students (M =18.05, t(72.66)= -3.39, p = .001, d = -.50) on university attachment at the group level. Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F = 5.21, p = .023) resulting in an adjustment to degrees of freedom from 209 to 72.66 for this comparison. 2SLGBTQIA+ students (M = 6.41) did not significantly differ from non-2SLGBTQIA+ students (M = 6.95, t(209) = -1.11, p = .268, d = -.20) on university attachment at the member level.
Disability Comparison.
Students answered either Yes or No to the question “I have a disability or medical condition which can interfere with my studies or for which I require accommodation.” Those who selected Yes (M = 31.35) gave lower Inclusive Teaching Scale (ITS) ratings as compared to those who selected No (M = 35.02, t(209) = -.2.55, p =.012, d = -.50). Students with disabilities or medical conditions (M = 23.13) did not significantly differ on the University Commitment Scale (UCS) from those without disabilities or medical conditions (M =23.47, t(209) = -.32, p = .749 d = -.06). Students with disabilities or medical conditions (M = 16.77) did not differ significantly from those without disabilities or medical conditions (M =17.67, t(72.66)= -.82, p = .415, d = -.16) on university attachment at the group level. Students with disabilities or medical conditions (M = 6.42) did not significantly differ from those without disabilities or medical conditions (M = 6.93, t(209) = -.95, p = .345, d = -.18) on university attachment at the member level.
First Generation Status Comparison.
Students answered either Yes or No to the question “Are you a first-generation student?” (i.e., parents did not attend any post-secondary institution). Those who selected Yes (M = 34.67) did not significantly differ on Inclusive Teaching Scale (ITS) ratings as compared to those who selected No (M = 34.41, t(209) = .23, p =.816, d = .04). First generation students (M = 24.34) did not significantly differ on the University Commitment Scale (UCS) from those who were not (M =23.05, t(209) = .60, p = .477, d = .24). First generation (M = 17.90) did not differ significantly from those who were not (M =17.39, t(209)= -.82, p = .547 d = .09) on university attachment at the group level. First generation students (M = 7.07) did not significantly differ from those who were not (M = 6.77, t(209) = .71, p = .477, d = .11) on university attachment at the member level.
Student Status Comparison.
Students reported either being a part-time student or a full-time student. Part-time students (M = 33.13) did not significantly differ on Inclusive Teaching Scale (ITS) ratings as compared to full-time students (M = 34.80, t(209) = -1.28, p =.204, d = -.22). Part-time students (M = 22.70) did not significantly differ on the University Commitment Scale (UCS) from those who were full-time students (M =23.59), t(209) = -.92, p = .358, d = -.16). Part-time students (M = 17.25) did not differ significantly from those who were full-time students (M =17.60, t(209)= -.36, p = .722, d = -.06) on university attachment at the group level. Part-time students (M = 6.13) did not significantly differ from those who were full-time students (M = 7.02, t(209) = -1.87, p = .064, d = -.33) on university attachment at the member level.
Qualitative Results
Qualitative Coding Approach. For this study, conventional qualitative analysis, a procedure based on observation wherein codes are drawn from data and defined during analysis, was used (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Whereas 211 participants provided usable data for the quantitative analyses, only 193 provided at least one text box response to the four open-ended questions asked, resulting in a sample size of 193 for qualitative analysis. As a starting point, we (i.e., principal investigator and student RA) engaged in reflective reading of the answers to the four open-ended questions (i.e., concerning strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of inclusive teaching at KPU) and took notes of our observations as a means of achieving data immersion. Then, a subset of data from 21 participants was read in order to develop codes based on the open-ended responses. These codes were discussed, disagreements were addressed, and definitions of codes were clarified to form a codebook for use when reading and coding the data from the remaining participants. Each time a new batch of participant data was coded, the codebook was revised as needed. Once coding was complete, the data within the various codes was examined carefully, and themes were generated and defined.
Given the brevity of text box responses as well as overlap across the responses provided for the four open-ended questions, themes were generated based on data patterns across the questions as opposed to on a question-by-question basis. This approach is in alignment with qualitative content analysis wherein mention is made as to how units of analysis and meaning are not givens, but rather the result of researcher decision-making guided by the aims of the research project (Krippendorff, 2019). The following actions, consistent with Lincoln and Guba (1985), were taken so that there would be trustworthiness to the research findings. The use of quantitative questionnaire data and qualitative open-ended text box responses to address the research questions allow for the triangulation of findings and supports the credibility of the research. Thick description of the qualitative methodology and participants is given so that the findings have transferability. Additionally, reflexive notes and codebook creation and maintenance supported meeting the trustworthiness criteria of dependability and confirmability.
Categories and Themes. A total of 10 themes were derived based on content analysis of the data (Table 1). “Nature of and Barriers to Inclusivity” is treated as a standalone theme, and the remaining themes were organized into the following categories: (a) Instructor Profile and Approach; (b) Class Content, Offerings, and Organization, and (C) Student Resources, Relations, and Expectations.
| Category | Theme | Short Description (This theme pertains to…) | Sample Quote (Pseudonym) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Instructor Profile and Approach
(3 themes) |
Faculty Characteristics | faculty-related aspects such as demographic makeup, hiring, training, and workload | I think teachers need to be regularly trained on inclusivity (or lack of) in their practices and the material they choose to use(P73) |
| Instructor Approach- Personal Characteristics | instructor influence on inclusive teaching by factors such as passion, kindness, communication etc. | Some profs are very interactive with their students and friendly, therefore making it easier for students to approach them with any questions they may have about the course material(P50) | |
| Instructor Approach-Practices | specific practices used by faculty such as gathering feedback, using diverse teaching methods and displaying commitment to inclusive behaviours. | The professors are very helpful and will provide you with different content if you are not able to understand(P99) | |
| Class Content, Offerings and Organization
(3 themes) |
Class Format –Macro/Institution Level | specific reference made to the university and/or factors which may extend beyond instructor control (e.g., scheduling) | Increase the availability of hybrid and online courses to accommodate diverse learning styles and schedules. (P84) |
| Class Format –Micro/Classroom Level | engagement and collaboration between classmates, groupwork and associated challenges, psychoeducational assessments, structuring of time and assessments etc. | I hope instructors will take the initiative to include ice-breaking activities in their classes(P143) | |
| Program-Specific Feedback | commentary about program areas (e.g., Psychology, Criminology etc.) either from a standalone or a comparative lens | it depends on the course, but i find that most counselling courses offer inclusive teaching practices(P118) | |
| Student Resources, Relations and Expectations
(3 themes) |
Social and Peer Dynamics | influence of classmates and social environment on student perceptions | Lack of after-school social opportunities: students can only meet in class(P66) |
| Differences and Diversity | composition of the student body in terms of demographics (e.g., language) and associated challenges | I think the university does its best to be inclusive but there is a huge lack of awareness on how separated most of the students are based on cultural backgrounds(P162) | |
| Student Supports and Expectations | opportunities and resources available to and desired by students as well as student concerns about workload | When people aren’t aware of what is offered to them, they will never know what is there to support them(P71) | |
| No category
(i.e., standalone theme) |
Nature of and Barriers to Inclusivity | definition, experience of and reactions to inclusivity to as well as what stands in the way of inclusivity | Some professors make it feel forced or rushed through to do acknowledgments or include pronouns(P94) |
Instructor Profile and Approach. The category Instructor Profile and Approach is inclusive of themes related to how undergraduate students discussed the demographic and educational background of instructors as well as teaching practices and observed traits. This category includes the following themes: Instructor Approach – Personal Characteristics, Instructor Approach – Practices, and Faculty Characteristics. Across the Instructor Approach – Personal Characteristics and Instructor Approach – Practices themes, a key pattern was noted wherein many instructor behaviours that students discussed were covered both under strengths and weaknesses of inclusive teaching. Some instances of such behaviours include level of organization, engagement in discussion of inclusion-related topics, and nature of interaction with students. Another pattern based on those themes is that many opportunities presented in relation to inclusive teaching reflect existing recommendations for instructors (e.g., offer opportunities for student interaction, checking in with students regarding assignments), It should be noted that for the theme of Faculty Characteristics, participants made direct suggestions regarding hiring (e. g., more diverse faculty) and training (e.g., related to cultural competency, disability awareness, handling frustrations with student lack of understanding etc.).
Class Content, Offerings and Organization. The category Class Content, Offerings and Organization covers themes related to how undergraduate students discussed specific courses taken, what is taught in courses, how those courses are organized, and on a broader level, when and how classes are offered. This category consists of the following themes: Class Format – Macro/Institution Level, Class Format – Micro/Classroom Level, and Program-Specific Feedback. Across the themes, a pattern noted was that a desire existed for greater frequency of classes and variability in offering types. For the themes of Class Format – Macro/Institutional Level and Class Format – Micro/Classroom Level, threats described indicate that environmental and structural factors impact perceptions of inclusivity (e.g., large classrooms, technology, travel to campus). In relation to the theme of Program-Specific Feedback, it warrants mention that program-related strengths (e.g., Criminology’s Indigenous focus; use of various teaching methods in Nursing) as well as areas wherein improvement can be made were provided (e.g., lack of focus on inclusive teaching in STEM; lack of co-op opportunities outside of programs such as Business).
Student Resources, Relations and Expectations. The category Student Resources, Relations and Expectations pertains to themes related to how undergraduate students discussed personal, relational and resource-related factors which influenced their experiences and perceptions in the university setting. This category is comprised of the following themes: Student Supports and Expectations, Differences and Diversity, and Social and Peer Dynamics. Across the themes of Differences and Diversity as well as Social and Peer Dynamics, a pattern was noted wherein respondents mentioned that peer interactions and engagement between students from different backgrounds is limited or strained. A theme-specific finding related to Student Supports and Expectations is that concerns exist surrounding workload and faculty expectations. This can be seen in a quote provided by P103: “We need more communication with students regarding how much we are able to balance. Professors who work with us, not against us, best understand our busy schedules and listen to our needs, wants and ideas.”
Nature of and Barriers to Inclusivity Theme
Unlike the themes which cluster into the categories above, the theme Nature of and Barriers to Inclusivity represents a standalone theme. A key idea related to this theme is the lack of consensus and clarity about the way inclusivity is construed, as depicted by the following quote from P60: “I think only seeing inclusivity from one point of view doesn’t work, we always talk about the biggest group of people present, not really all cultures.” Respondents also outlined threats to achieving inclusivity. A sample threat indicated is how faculty as well as students could resist inclusivity, as illustrated in the following quote by P101: “Barriers might be the lack of understanding from students and the blindness of faculty and students in accepting inclusivity issues in the university.” Another threat reported was how there is potential for misuse when efforts to be inclusive are implemented, as indicated in the following quote from P130: “invade some one’s boundry [sic] where a student does not want to disclose any information about themselve like identity.”
Discussion
This study was designed to gain insights into the extent to which inclusive and DEI-aligned teaching practices are observed at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (RQ1 and RQ2), to identify relationships with student success correlates (e.g., university attachment) (RQ1), and to determine inclusive-teaching related strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (RQ2)6. The results from quantitative analyses indicated that inclusive teaching practices were observed more frequently than explicit DEI practices and that group-level differences exist in the extent of observation of inclusive teaching practices (i.e., for international students, 2SLGBTQIA+ students, and students with disabilities). Inclusive teaching was also found to be a predictor of both attachment to university and commitment to university. Based on qualitative analyses, one standalone theme, Nature of and Barriers to Inclusivity, as well as three categories of themes: (a) Instructor Profile and Approach, (b) Class Content, Offerings and Organization, and (c) Student Resources, Relations and Expectations were generated. Key qualitative findings include overlap being noted between areas of strength and weakness (e.g., engagement in discussion of inclusion-related topics), the provision of several opportunities (e.g., faculty workshop ideas, co-op opportunities), and consequential threats (e.g., resistance from faculty and/or students).
The findings from this research aid in answering the three practical questions posed at the start of this paper: Where are we at? Why should we care? What can we do? Each of these questions, all of which concern inclusive and DEI-centric teaching practices at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, will be addressed in turn. The first question is primarily focused on perceived strengths, weaknesses, and threats at Kwantlen as well as the responses of students to the inclusive teaching scale questions posed. To answer the second question, attention must be directed to the quantitative data findings which illustrate how inclusive teaching correlates to university commitment and attachment as well as variations across different student groups. The last question is best addressed by considering areas wherein students believe there is opportunity for improvement at KPU. Some insights for the third question can also be drawn by revisiting the quantitative findings regarding frequency of observation of specific practices.
Where are we at?
At the individual item-level (Figure 1), Kwantlen Polytechnic University students reported inclusive instructional practices (e.g., providing rubrics for assignments) to a greater extent than explicit DEI practices (e.g., responding to microaggressions in the classroom). This finding is consistent with Valdez and Kelp (2023) who showed a similar pattern in their research concerning perceptions of STEM instructors. In relation to Kwantlen Polytechnic University, one reason for these findings could be due to shifting institutional priorities. In the updated academic plan for 2024-2027, greater emphasis is given to EDIA-focused teaching goals such as curricular development that is anti-ableist (Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2023). This study took place at a time wherein the new Academic Plan was in the early stages of its implementation, and as such, instructor awareness and familiarity with explicit DEI teaching practices may have been limited. Another explanation could be that DEI-related teaching practices may be perceived as more challenging to implement than inclusive instructional practices. In support of this assertion, focus group participants from Stripe and Ntonia (2023) mentioned that providing students with learning outcomes and mark schemes and making sure they understand expectations represented a minor challenge, but in contrast, challenging stereotypes as well as using a range of representative sources were considered as greater challenges.
At the practice level (i.e., inclusive teaching practices as compared to explicit DEI practices), whereas explicit DEI practices were reported by some participants as never being observed or only being seen some of the time with some instructors, inclusive instructional practices were observed far more regularly (see Figure 2). The Instructor Profile and Approach as well as Class Content, Offerings and Organization categories obtained via content analysis both included themes wherein more frequent observation of inclusive instructional practices was noted as compared to explicit DEI practices (i.e., mentions made of instructors offering instructional guidance, but also mentions of avoiding DEI-related topics). This pair of related findings indicate convergence between the qualitative and quantitative data. Additionally, based on the themes generated, overlap between strengths and weaknesses in inclusive teaching were noted (e.g., “Most professors provide thorough expectations about homework, assignments” (P154), as compared to: “some weaknesses I consider are not being provided a proper Rubric in some classes by some professors for assignments” (P158)). This pattern of findings is consistent with Hande (2014), wherein a SWOT on blended learning included the Blackboard learning system both as strength and a weakness. In relation to this paper, this overlap in strengths and weaknesses as well as relative observation of inclusive pedagogical practices may be attributable to individual differences in student perception. Specifically, individuals may form different impressions of the same person (e.g., instructor) due to factors such as cultural schemas and prior experiences (Jhangiani & Tarry, 2022).
The qualitative findings also highlight perceived threats in relation to inclusive teaching. Several of the discussed threats are those for which institutional oversight and actions are required. For instance, student concerns about being assigned to a large classroom, technological concerns, having to travel between campuses, or classes being full at time of registration reflect areas wherein instructors may have limited ability to make changes. However, these types of concerns can have significant impact on a student’s satisfaction and feeling of belonging and inclusion. To illustrate, Heffernan’s (2024) research found that experiences such as classroom location changes and the need to use public transport were perceived as challenges for students with disabilities. The threats discussed in relation to the theme Nature of and Barriers to Inclusivity, namely faculty and student resistance as well as concerns about the potential for misuse, reflect areas that are relevant for instructors as well as other stakeholders to consider. These identified threats are in alignment with motivations underlying resistance to inclusive teaching identified in the literature. For students, discomfort can stem from such teaching challenging long-held assumptions about the nature of education and needing to engage in critical self-reflection (Zinga & Styres, 2019). For faculty members, factors such as time pressures, lack of training, and requiring support from university administration all contribute to pushback (Stripe & Ntonia, 2023). Addressing such concerns may lend to improved ratings of inclusive teaching by students and better uptake and implementation of inclusive practices by instructors.
Why should we care?
Some group differences in inclusive teaching ratings were noted among students from equity-deserving groups. 2SGLBTQIA+ students and those with disabilities or medical conditions provided lower ratings on the inclusive teaching scale. For 2SLGBTQIA+ and students with disabilities, the reported ratings may be a reflection of broader negative campus experiences or lived classroom experiences. To expand, as noted in the Centre for Innovation in Campus Mental Health (CICMH, 2022) toolkit on supporting 2SLGBTQ+ students, clear mention is made to challenges these students face on campus such as experiencing microaggressions, safety concerns, and access barriers. In turn, such experiences can lower feelings of belonging and have negative academic consequences (CICMH, 2022). In the case of students with disabilities, participants in Heffernan’s (2024) qualitative work have expressed how they feel as though they are not part of the class and that there are concerns that their accommodations will not be met.
In contrast, international students reported higher scores on inclusive teaching. Additionally, international students who provided higher ratings of inclusive teaching also reported higher levels of feeling attached to the university as a whole as well as to members of the university. Research by Sarker at al. (2025) has shown that when international students perceive support from their institution, they may be more likely to recommend their university in the future. Additionally, Parmar et al. (2024) discuss how international students mention factors such as support services and friendly people in the host country as contributors to success. In relation to KPU, it could be the case that their internationalization efforts (e.g., International Peer Mentorship Program) as well as student success initiatives such as the Zero Textbook Cost Initiative have resulted in international students positively perceiving instruction as being inclusive at the university(Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2024). In turn, such efforts may have also contributed to feeling a greater sense of institutional attachment. Varying student experiences and perceptions of inclusive teaching (e.g., lower scores for 2SLGBTQIA+ students and higher scores for international students) warrant attention as these may influence motivation to persist in university. To expand, sense of belonging and curriculum are outlined as key components of a student’s decision to persist at university (Tinto, 2017). Sense of belonging is influenced by interactions with instructional staff and other members of the academic community (Tinto, 2017). Curricular efforts to make content more representative of the student groups being taught is also encouraged (Tinto, 2017). Lower scores on inclusive teaching noted in this research (i.e., among students with disabilities or medical conditions as well as 2SLGBTQIA+ students) may reflect a need to direct efforts towards improving the student experience for students from equity-deserving groups.
Just as Tinto’s work on persistence is important to consider in relation to this research, so too can Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory be relevant. To elaborate, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory describes how an individual’s development is influenced by proximal (e.g., peers) and distal (e.g., policies in place) factors (Guanghui, 2024). This theory has been applied to education, wherein students are the center of a system surrounded by a microsystem that includes classes and friendship groups and an exosystem which includes institutional policy makers as well as faculty curriculum committees (Renn & Smith, 2023). In this research, the three qualitative categories and standalone theme map well onto Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory model. If student perceptions of inclusive teaching are considered as the center of the ecological system, Instructor Approach and Practices can be considered as an element of the microsystem. Class Content, Offerings and Organization as well as Student Supports, Relations and Expectations can be thought of as elements of both the microsystem and exosystem. Lastly, the theme Nature of and Barriers to Inclusivity can be construed as related to the macrosystem. Taken together, this suggests that from the student lens, for teaching to be considered as inclusive, faculty practices are necessary, but not sufficient. Involvement from other members of the academic community ranging from classmates to curriculum developers to institutional leadership is also required.
What can we do?
Examining the inclusive teaching scale at the item-level is informative for determining areas wherein inclusive teaching can be enhanced as well as sustained at the university. To elaborate, practices such as providing adequate structure for class activities and mentioning intentions for inclusivity were less frequently observed than other practices. Such practices reflect areas for teaching development and are commonly addressed by Teaching and Learning Centres (TLC’s) across various universities (Kenny et al., 2025). To expand, these practices would fall under TLC activities such as creating and leading research-informed resources and providing facilitative expertise and advancing EDIA in teaching and learning (Kenny et al., 2025). Both seasoned and early career faculty may serve to benefit by setting up consultations with their institution’s TLC as a means of professional development and to further support their students by refining their inclusive teaching practices.
Students also provided a number of concrete recommendations as to what can be done in their qualitative responses. The recommendations directed specifically at faculty are consistent with what Shane-Simpson et al. (2025) found in their research wherein being responsive to student needs was identified as a way in which instructors create or support an inclusive classroom. Some notable opportunities, beyond those discussed earlier, include: “more library days for class assignments” (P96), “more flexibility with submission types for exams, assignments etc.” (P3), “have an anonymous hotline or email address for students who are facing discrimination” (P73), “classrooms for those with disabilities and learning disabilities” (P204), “some cell phone apps (like Kahoot) may encourage students to express their thoughts without being judged (P209), and “I believe that having a university wide policy surrounding use of genAI note taking tools would assist those with learning disabilities and international students.” (P69). Collectively, these recommendations indicate that the onus is not only placed on faculty members for contributing to inclusivity. Rather, to be inclusive, structural (e.g., related to classrooms) and resource-based (e.g., anonymous hotline) supports are required, and this might require the involvement of and support from university administration and support services staff.
A Note on Non-Significant Group Difference Findings
In relation to inclusive teaching and associated variables, the following group comparisons were non-significant: 1) part-time status students’ ratings of inclusive teaching as compared to full-time status students’ ratings, 2) first generation students’ ratings of inclusive teaching as compared to non-first-generation students’ ratings, 3) ratings given by Psychology majors as compared to ratings from non-Psychology majors on inclusive teaching, and 4) group differences, specifically for Psychology majors as compared to non-Psychology majors, in prediction of university attachment and university commitment respectively by inclusive teaching. A potential explanation as to why differences may not have been detected could be due to the use of simple group comparison designs (e.g., students with part-time status as compared to students with full-time status). Such comparisons can result in null findings due to differences being detectable at category intersections (e.g., part-time first-generation students; Bauer, 2014). In further support of this explanation, in their qualitative responses, study participants shared insights about identity and lifestyle markers which could potentially intersect with the measured demographics and influence perceptions of inclusive teaching (e.g., language, financial situation).
Limitations
This research was conducted at a single post-secondary institution, Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU). In its Vision 2026 document, KPU clearly outlines core values such as equity and care as well as relevant goals (e.g., advancing EDIA across the institution and enhancing student experience; Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2023). In line with this vision, the KPU Academic Plan further specifies actions such as having anti-ableist pedagogy and rigorous decolonization efforts (Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2023). As a result, the generalizability of the findings may be restricted to other teaching-excellence oriented institutions or institutions with a similar set of goals, values and proposed actions. Sample size could be considered as another potential limitation of this research. With a final quantitative sample of N = 211 (wherein 193 completed data enabling qualitative analysis), this sample size is in keeping with recommendations outlined for mixed methods research (Venkatesh et al., 2024). However, given unequal sample sizes between some groups (e.g., 2SLGBTQIA+ vs. not 2SLGBTQIA+), findings of those comparative analyses should be interpreted with caution. With respect to the qualitative research findings, some limitations included the inability to ask follow-up questions about responses to open-ended questions as well as vagueness in responses in some instances (Venkatesh et al., 2024). In spite of these limitations, Tran et al. (2016) have noted in their work on data saturation using open-ended questions that at the point of including 150 participants, over 90% of themes were identified. In relation to this research, with a qualitative dataset including ~ 200 participants, this bolsters confidence that data saturation was achieved.
Future Directions
The limitations presented in the previous section can inform potential new research avenues. To address generalizability concerns, replication studies of inclusive teaching could be conducted at various postsecondary institutions (e.g., research-intensive) to determine how well findings extend to institutions outside of KPU. Expanding the sample size when conducting follow-up studies could enable the study of group-level differences to a better extent (e.g., based on demographics such as age and gender). Whereas this research focused on student perspectives of inclusive teaching, there is a rich body of research centered around instructors in relation to inclusive teaching (e.g., Gawronski et al., 2016; Stripe & Ntonia, 2023). As a way to determine areas of convergence and divergence between students and instructors, instructor perceptions of their implementation of inclusive teaching practices can be compared against student experiences of observing such practices. This work was primarily exploratory in nature, and the mixed methods design enabled data saturation. The use of in-person qualitative methods (e.g., focus groups) could enable further testing of the categories and themes generated in this research, allowing for follow-up, and can aid with interpretive validity (Vishwanath et al., 2024). Finally, research can explore the extent to which artificial intelligence can be leveraged to support implementation of inclusive teaching practices by faculty, as this is an emerging research area (e.g., Ajani et al., 2024).
Conclusion
As to student perceptions of inclusive teaching at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, collectively, the qualitative and quantitative findings from this research show convergence. Students perceived that their instructors are engaging in inclusive pedagogy, with inclusive instructional practices being more prevalent than explicit DEI practices. A distinct insight from the quantitative data is the identification of group-level differences in inclusive teaching perceptions (e.g., lower ratings by 2SLGBTQIA+ students). Another key insight is the clear documentation of inclusive teaching by international student status interaction effects in the prediction of university attachment at both the group level and the member level. In contrast, a unique contribution from the qualitative portion of this research is that it highlighted potentially overlooked threats (e.g., student-level resistance) and actionable opportunities (e.g., making more evident supports available for students). In the words of Paulo Freire, “Education either functions as an instrument to bring about conformity or freedom.” (Freire, 2000). The findings from this mixed-methods research offer data-driven recommendations to faculty members and key institutional stakeholders on how to further narrow inequity gaps in student success and promote education that is anti-oppressive.
Author Note
Funding support for this research was through the Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund from the Centre for Teaching and Learning at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
References
Ajani, O. A., Akintolu, M., & Afolabi, S. O. (2024). The emergence of artificial intelligence in the higher education: Prospects and challenges of AI. International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v13i8.3507
Albornoz, C. (2022) Pedagogies and strategies for an anti-oppression classroom [Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta]. Scholaris. https://ualberta.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/e786ed32-2ec7-429e-94bb-2afc74f896e3/content
Bauer, G. R. (2014). Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Social Science & Medicine, 110, 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.022
Brito, E., Neves, M. P., Gomes, N., & Lopes, N. (2025). Inclusion and internationalization: Perception of higher education students. Interchange, 56(3), 259-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-025-09544-3
Canadian Psychological Association. (n.d.). Justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI) resources. https://cpa.ca/students/jedi
Centre for Innovation in Campus Mental Health. (2024, March). Student engagement toolkit. https://campusmentalhealth.ca/toolkits/student-engagement
Centre for Innovation in Campus Mental Health. (2022, December). Invisible intersections: A toolkit on supporting 2SLGBTQ+ students on campus. https://campusmentalhealth.ca/toolkits/invisible-intersections/
Divan, A., Ludwig, L. O., Matthews, K. E., Motley, P. M., & Tomljenovic-Berube, A. M. (2017). Survey of research approaches utilised in the scholarship of teaching and learning publications. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 5(2), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.2.3
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). Continuum
Heffernan, T. (2024). Failing at the basics: Disabled university students’ views on enhancing classroom inclusion. Oxford Review of Education, 50(5), 694 709. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2281314
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
France, M. K., Finney, S. J., & Swerdzewski, P. (2010). Students’ group and member attachment to their university: A construct validity study of the university attachment scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 440-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344510
Guanghui, C. (2025). Ecological systems theory. In Z. Kan (Ed.), The ECPH Encyclopedia of Psychology (pp. 441-443). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7874-4_742
Gawronski, M., Kuk, L., & Lombardi, A. R. (2016). Inclusive instruction: Perceptions of community college faculty and students pertaining to universal design. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(4), 331-347.
Jackson-Summers, A. G., Mrakovcich, K. L., Gray, J. P., Fleischmann, C. M., Emami, T., & Page, E. J. (2024). A systematic review of inclusive pedagogical research using the CIRTL inclusive pedagogy framework: Multi-disciplinary and STEM perspectives, current trends and a research agenda. Discover Education, 3(1), 30 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s4217-024-00930-y
Jhangiani, R., & Tarry, H. (2022). Principles of social psychology (1st International H5P ed.). BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/
Jones, G. A., Tamtik, M., & Trilokekar, R. D. (2020). Research on higher education in Canada: History, emerging themes, and future directions. Toronto: Centre for the Study of Canadian and International Higher Education, OISE-University of Toronto.
Kenny, N., Arshad, M. A., Biswas, S., Carter, J., Dyjur, P., Flanagan, K., Grant, K. A., Kaipainen, E., Marneau, C., Mason, D., Miller, S., Norman, D., Smith, E. E., Stowe, L., & Usman, F. (2025). Shifts and transformation in Canadian postsecondary teaching and learning: Views from teaching and learning centre leaders. University of Calgary. https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/49576
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170593
Kwantlen Polytechnic University (2023). Vision 2026 and the academic plan. https://www.kpu.ca/vp-academic/academic-plan/vision-and-academic-plan
Kwantlen Polytechnic University (2024). KPU international viewbook 2024-25 [PDF]. https://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/international/KPU-INT-Viewbook-2024-25-0220-Update.pdf
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. (Vol. 75). Sage Publications.
MacPherson Institute (n.d.). Inclusive teaching and learning resources. McMaster University. https://mi.mcmaster.ca/inclusive-teaching-and-learning-resources/
Manarin, K., Adams, C., Fendler, R., Marsh, H., Pohl, E., Porath, S., & Thomas, A. (2021). Examining the focus of SoTL literature—teaching and learning?. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 9(1), 349-364. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.1.23
Page, C., Hardwick, J., Takacs, S. (2021). Inclusive Pedagogies. Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU). https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/inclusivepedagogies/chapter/what-are-inclusive-pedagogies/
Parmar, N., Stokes, J., Parmar, H., & Hunter, B. (2024). Exploring the perceptions and concerns of Canadian international students (IS). Journal of Educational Informatics, 5(2), 33–69. https://doi.org/10.51357/jei.v5i2.285
Queen’s University, Faculty of Education (2024, August 13). A guide for inclusive teaching. https://educ.queensu.ca/community/equity-diversity-inclusion-decolonization-indigenization-accessibility-and-anti-racism/Guide-for-Inclusive-Teaching
Renn, K. A., & Smith, B. R. (2023). Ecological models in higher education research: Overview and synthesis. New Directions for Higher Education, 2023(204), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20491
Rothwell, A., Herbert, I., & Rothwell, F. (2008). Self-perceived employability: Construction and initial validation of a scale for university students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.12.001
Safonov, M.A., Usov, S.S., & Arkhipov, S.V. (2021, July). E-learning application effectiveness in higher education. General research based on SWOT analysis. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology (pp. 207-212). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3481056.3481096
Sarker, M., Worae, J., & Edgerton, J. D. (2025). An investigation of international students’ satisfaction with their university experience using an expectation confirmation theory lens. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 17(5), 74-95. https://doi.org/10.64899/2151-0407.1946
Shane-Simpson, C., Obeid, R., Chang, J., Ki, D., & Arlt, E. (2025). Using student narratives to characterize inclusive pedagogy and inclusive classrooms in higher education. Teaching of Psychology, 52(4), 443-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241269434
Sharifnia, A. M., Kpormegbey, D. E., Thapa, D. K., & Cleary, M. (2026). A primer of data cleaning in quantitative research: Handling missing values and outliers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 82(1), 970-975. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16908
Smith, C. (2020). International students and their academic experiences: Student satisfaction, student success challenges, and promising teaching practices. In K. Bista, S. Sharma, & U. Gaulee (Eds.), Rethinking education across borders: Emerging issues and critical insights on globally mobile students (pp. 271-287). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2399-1_16
Stripe, K., & Ntonia, I. (2023). Twenty-two recommendations for inclusive teaching and their implementation challenges. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (28). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi28.1034
Tinto, V. (2017). Reflections on student persistence. Student Success, 8(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i2.376
Tran, V. T., Porcher, R., Falissard, B., & Ravaud, P. (2016). Point of data saturation was assessed using resampling methods in a survey with open-ended questions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 80, 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.014
Valdez, C. J., & Kelp, N. C. (2023). Student perceptions of inclusive pedagogy in undergraduate STEM classrooms. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 24(3), e00097-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00097-23
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Sullivan, Y. (2024). Conducting mixed-methods research. Virginia Tech Publishing. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/items/5a31b0c0-9760-475d-81b8-9984d895ba62
Wilbiks, J. M. (2021). Indigenizing the introduction to psychology course: Initial course content suggestions and call for collaboration. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 62(4), 391-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000284
Universities Canada (n.d.) Building a caring, inclusive society. https://univcan.ca/our-work/building-a-caring-inclusive-society/
Universities Canada. (2023). Equity, diversity and inclusion at Canadian universities: Universities Canada’s 2022 survey on equity diversity and inclusion [PDF]. https://univcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/UC-2023-ED
I-Report_EN_FA_Web.pdf
Zinga, D., & Styres, S. (2019). Decolonizing curriculum: Student resistances to anti-oppressive pedagogy. Power and Education, 11(1), 30-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743818810565
Image Descriptions
Figure 1
Bar chart showing the frequency of observation for various teaching practices, with two categories: explicit DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) practices (grey bars) and inclusive instructional practices (black bars). The y-axis ranges from 0 to 5 (frequency of observation), and the x-axis lists specific practices.
Explicit DEI practices (grey bars) include providing topic summaries, connecting class material to real-world contexts, offering classroom structures for equity and inclusion, and encouraging participation in class discussions; these are generally observed at moderate to high frequencies (approximately 3 to 4 out of 5).
Inclusive instructional practices (black bars) include encouraging more class discussions, using diverse materials, shaping class activities around lived experiences, asking for student feedback, inviting questions, mentioning intentions for inclusivity, and sharing pronouns. These practices show slightly lower and more varied frequencies (approximately 2.5 to 3.2 out of 5).
Error bars indicate variability around each mean value.
Figure 2
Bar chart showing the percentage distribution of how often explicit DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) practices (black bars) and inclusive instructional practices (grey bars) are observed across five frequency categories on the x-axis: “Never,” “Some of the time with some instructors,” “Some of the time with all instructors,” “All of the time with some instructors,” and “All of the time with all instructors.” The y-axis represents percent (0 to approximately 25).
Explicit DEI practices (black bars) are most commonly reported as occurring “Some of the time with some instructors” (about 18%) and “Some of the time with all instructors” (about 17%), with smaller proportions for “All of the time with some instructors” (about 9%), “Never” (about 4%), and “All of the time with all instructors” (about 2%).
Inclusive instructional practices (grey bars) are most frequently reported as occurring “All of the time with some instructors” (about 24%), followed by “Some of the time with all instructors” (about 19%). Lower percentages are observed for “Some of the time with some instructors” (about 4%) and “All of the time with all instructors” (about 4%), with minimal or no reports of “Never.”
Overall, inclusive instructional practices appear more frequently sustained (“all of the time with some instructors”), while explicit DEI practices are more often reported as occurring intermittently (“some of the time”).
Figure 3
Bubble chart displaying the relationship between number of instructors (x-axis, values 0 to 2) and frequency of practices (y-axis, values 1 to 2). Marker size represents the proportion of respondents, with larger circles indicating higher proportions (as shown in the legend ranging roughly from 20 to 120).
Four data points are visible:
- At 1 instructor and frequency of 2, a large circle indicates the highest proportion of respondents.
- At 2 instructors and frequency of 1, a moderately large circle indicates a substantial proportion.
- At 1 instructor and frequency of 1, a small circle indicates a lower proportion.
- At 2 instructors and frequency of 2, a very small circle indicates a minimal proportion.
Overall, most respondents report higher frequency of practices with a single instructor, while experiences involving multiple instructors and lower frequencies are less common.
Figure 4
Bubble chart showing the relationship between number of instructors (x-axis, values 0 to 2) and frequency of practices (y-axis, values 0 to 2). Circle size represents the proportion of respondents, with larger circles indicating greater proportions (legend ranges approximately from 0 to 60).
Four data points are visible:
- At 1 instructor and frequency of 2, a large circle indicates the highest proportion of respondents.
- At 1 instructor and frequency of 1, a medium-sized circle indicates a moderate proportion.
- At 2 instructors and frequency of 1, a small circle indicates a lower proportion.
- At 0 instructors and frequency of 0, a very small circle indicates a minimal proportion.
Overall, responses cluster around having one instructor, particularly with higher frequency of practices, while fewer respondents report no instructors or very low frequency.
Figure 5
Line graph illustrating the relationship between inclusive teaching (x-axis, ranging approximately from −20 to 30) and university group attachment (y-axis, ranging approximately from 5 to 35) for two student groups: international students (red line) and non-international students (blue line).
Both groups show a positive relationship, with higher levels of inclusive teaching associated with greater university group attachment. The line for international students is steeper, starting lower (around 6) at the lowest levels of inclusive teaching and rising sharply to above 30 at the highest levels. The line for non-international students starts higher (around 12) and increases more gradually to approximately 25.
The lines intersect slightly below the midpoint of the x-axis (around −5 to 0), indicating that at lower levels of inclusive teaching, non-international students report higher attachment, but at higher levels of inclusive teaching, international students report greater attachment.
Overall, the chart shows that inclusive teaching practices are associated with increased sense of belonging for both groups, with a stronger effect for international students.
Figure 6
Line graph illustrating the relationship between inclusive teaching scale (x-axis, ranging approximately from −20 to 30) and university member attachment (y-axis, ranging approximately from 3 to 16) for two student groups: international students (red line) and non-international students (blue line).
Both groups show a positive association, with higher inclusive teaching scores corresponding to higher levels of university member attachment. The line for international students is steeper, beginning at a lower level (around 3) at the lowest end of the scale and rising sharply to about 15–16 at the highest end. The line for non-international students starts higher (around 4–5) and increases more gradually to approximately 10–11.
The two lines intersect near the middle of the scale (around −2 to 0), indicating that at lower levels of inclusive teaching, non-international students report higher attachment, but at higher levels, international students report greater attachment.
Overall, the figure shows that inclusive teaching is linked to stronger university member attachment for both groups, with a more pronounced increase for international students.
Return to Figure 6