Universal design helps international students only when culture stays in view
Updated Apr 29, 2026
Inclusive teaching frameworks sound universal. International students often experience them through culture first. That is why Mark Ojeme and Oluwaseun Kolade's Innovations in Education and Teaching International paper, "The sociocultural context of international students' experience in the UK: exploring the merits and limits of Universal Design for Learning", matters for UK universities using student voice to improve international student support. It argues that inclusive design only goes so far if institutions ignore how prior educational cultures shape what clarity, participation, and support feel like in practice.
Context and research question
Universal Design for Learning, or UDL, is often presented as a route to flexibility and inclusion across diverse cohorts. The risk, especially in international education, is that "universal" can flatten cultural differences or quietly position prior learning habits as problems to be corrected. That creates a practical problem for UK higher education teams: if an inclusive framework is interpreted too narrowly, student feedback may tell you something important, but not in the way you first assume.
Ojeme and Kolade examine that tension through thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and focus group discussions about international learners' educational experiences in the UK. The paper asks a useful question for Student Experience, international, and academic teams alike: what happens when a framework designed to widen access meets students whose prior educational experiences carry different assumptions about authority, participation, and collaboration?
Key findings
The main finding is that UDL did not land uniformly across international students. The paper's abstract puts the point plainly:
"UDL's implementation yields varied outcomes for international students, predicated on their different cultural backgrounds."
That matters because a university can hear positive feedback about flexibility in aggregate and still miss sharp differences in how particular students interpret the same teaching design. A discussion-heavy seminar, a loose brief, or a highly self-directed task may feel liberating to some students and disorienting to others.
The paper suggests that inclusive teaching works better when participative expectations are made legible. The authors argue for a pedagogical balance that values the discipline associated with high power distance cultures while also fostering collaborative inquiry in more participative environments. In practice, that means a more interactive classroom is not automatically inclusive if students are left to decode unfamiliar norms on their own. That fits closely with recent evidence that international students' learning practices are an asset, not a deficit, but still need the host institution to explain how participation is expected to work.
Prior educational cultures should be treated as assets, not deficits. Rather than framing international students' earlier learning experiences as barriers to be stripped away, the paper argues that those experiences can be co-opted into learning spaces as forms of cultural capital. That is a useful corrective for UK universities, because it shifts the task from "fixing" students to designing teaching that can recognise and use a wider range of academic habits, strengths, and expectations.
UDL alone is not enough without culturally responsive pedagogy and staff cultural competence. The paper does not suggest abandoning inclusive design. It suggests being more realistic about its limits. Frameworks matter, but staff judgement, communication, and intercultural awareness still determine whether flexibility feels enabling or confusing. For universities, the practical benefit is better interpretation: feedback about uncertainty may reflect a mismatch of expectations, not a lack of motivation or ability.
Practical implications
For UK universities, the first implication is to stop reading international student feedback as one coherent bloc. When students comment on participation, group work, feedback, or independent learning, teams should ask whether the issue is really about weak teaching design, or whether students are trying to navigate unfamiliar academic norms. That distinction leads to more accurate action, which is a direct benefit for course teams reviewing module evaluations or international student surveys.
Second, institutions should ask better open-text questions about what helped students understand expectations. Prompts such as "Which teaching approaches made expectations clearest?" or "What felt unfamiliar about how participation worked on this course?" produce better evidence than a general satisfaction item. This is especially important when inclusive teaching also intersects with onboarding, information access, and wider transition issues, as shown in recent work on why international students' digital transition shapes belonging, not just convenience. A structured approach such as our NSS open-text analysis methodology then helps teams turn those comments into something comparable and actionable.
Third, universities should translate UDL principles into explicit teaching practice rather than assuming students will infer the culture behind them. That means explaining why discussion matters, scaffolding group work, making examples of good participation visible, and using support routes that let students ask what is expected without losing face. This is one reason personal tutoring and student voice work best together: a trusted tutor can help surface where a student is struggling with the academic culture, not only the content. The benefit is a clearer route from inclusive design to actual inclusion.
The broader lesson is simple. International student support is stronger when universities analyse comments for cultural interpretation as well as satisfaction. That is where Student Voice Analytics fits naturally. It helps teams compare recurring themes such as clarity, participation, support, and belonging across large volumes of free text, so international, academic, and student experience teams can act on patterns rather than assumptions.
FAQ
Q: How should a university use this paper when reviewing international student feedback?
A: Segment comments where governance allows, and look specifically at themes such as clarity of expectations, participation, group work, and support. Then ask whether the friction appears mainly pedagogic, cultural, or both. That produces a much better action plan than treating all negative feedback as a general "student support" problem.
Q: Does this paper say UDL is the wrong model for international students?
A: No. The paper does not reject UDL. It argues that UDL's promise is limited when inclusive design is treated as culturally neutral. UDL still helps, but it works better when staff explain participation norms clearly, recognise different prior learning cultures, and use culturally responsive teaching alongside design principles.
Q: What does this change about student voice work more broadly?
A: It reinforces that the same comment can mean different things across cohorts. If a student says a module felt unclear or too open, that may reflect unfamiliar academic culture as much as weak teaching. Better interpretation makes international student feedback more diagnostic, fairer to students, and more useful for institutional action.
References
[Paper Source]: Mark Ojeme, Oluwaseun Kolade "The sociocultural context of international students' experience in the UK: exploring the merits and limits of Universal Design for Learning" DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2026.2665708
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround