Building Inclusive Curricula: Supporting Diversity At Scale

 By Matt Mears

At the 2025 Education Conference, themed Education Through the Eyes of our Learners, I developed a workshop exploring a crucial and timely question in higher education:

What makes a curriculum truly inclusive, and how can we design for diversity at scale without compromising quality or individual support?

 Along with my colleagues Professor Emma Norling (School of Computer Science) and Professor Willy Kitchen (School of Education), attendees were presented with different definitions and frameworks in the inclusive curriculum literature before discussing the opportunities and challenges associated with making our curriculum more inclusive.

 This blog post shares key takeaways from the session, focusing on:

1. What makes an inclusive curriculum?
2. A framework for designing inclusive curricula.
3. Feedback from roundtable discussions – placeholder section

What makes an inclusive curriculum?

"Inclusive curriculum" is a phrase frequently used in higher education discussions but its meaning and implications can vary widely depending on context. At its heart, an inclusive curriculum seeks to remove structural and cultural barriers to student success, enabling meaningful participation and a sense of belonging for all learners.

Definitions in the literature highlight different facets:

• Carey (2012) describes inclusion in curriculum as the active removal of structural and pedagogical barriers that prevent some students from participating on equal terms.
• Mills & Ayre (2003) argue that a truly inclusive curriculum acknowledges and reflects the interests and needs of both traditional and non-traditional students, challenging narrow definitions of academic success and disciplinary identity.
• Hockings (2010) outlines an inclusive curriculum as one that is accessible, engaging, and relevant to all students, irrespective of background, ability, or experience.

Bringing these together, Smucker (2024) identifies seven characteristics of inclusive curricula:

Characteristic	Description
Welcoming	Invites students to explore their identities and feel a sense of belonging.
Accessible	Removes physical, digital, and cognitive barriers to participation.
Challenging	Maintains high expectations and provides support to meet them.
Flexible	Offers multiple pathways for engagement and achievement.
Intentional	Designs in inclusivity from the outset, not as a reactive add-on
Authentic	Connects curriculum content to real-world issues and students’ lived experiences.
Transparent	Makes expectations, outcomes, and processes clear and navigable

These principles are not only applicable at the level of module or programme design—they also shape the day-to-day practices of teaching, feedback, assessment, and student support. An inclusive curriculum is not just about what we teach but, more critically, how and why we teach it.

Frameworks for designing an inclusive curriculum.

Designing inclusively is not just a matter of good intention—it requires structured thinking, strategic action, and a willingness to challenge embedded assumptions.

In the workshop, we explored two frameworks that support this work: the Inclusive Curriculum Framework (ICF) developed by McDuff et al. (2020) and the reflective curriculum audit proposed by Mills & Ayre (2003).

The Inclusive Curriculum Framework (McDuff et al.)

The ICF prompts educators to think about inclusivity in both the design and monitoring of curricula. It asks us to consider three core principles across each area:

1. Accessibility – Are all students able to engage equitably with the curriculum?
2. Representation – Are diverse identities, experiences, and knowledge meaningfully included?
3. Preparation – Are students equipped with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for a diverse world?

This reflection is structured across key curriculum components such as content, pedagogy, assessment, and evaluation. Below is the version of the framework presented in the session.

We have created an editable version of this framework for anyone to use, which you can make a copy of or download. This includes both a blank template and a series of prompt questions in each box to help guide and stimulate your thinking.

The Mills & Ayre Curriculum Audit

This tool offers a more open-ended, qualitative lens, encouraging educators to interrogate five key elements:

Area	Reflective Questions
Assumptions	What beliefs and values underlie your curriculum design?
Aims and Objectives	Do these reflect diverse student goals and societal needs?
Content	Whose voices and knowledge are included or excluded?
Teaching Methods	Are your pedagogies inclusive, participatory, and accessible?
Assessment	Do students have multiple ways to demonstrate learning and success?

Used together, these tools can support academic teams and professional services staff in co-developing curricula that are not only compliant with sector expectations (such as those set out in the Equality Act 2010) but genuinely transformative for learners.

Feedback from the roundtable discussions

In the final part of the workshop, participants worked in groups to explore how inclusive curriculum design principles are experienced in their own settings. Each group was asked to reflect on one dimension of the curriculum lifecycle (such as assessment, teaching, or feedback) and consider how it maps against the Inclusive Curriculum Framework (ICF).

The ICF uses three core Principles, summarised as Accessibility, Representation, and Preparation—to support staff in identifying inclusive and equitable practices across curriculum design and delivery. Participants were invited to reflect on these principles using the following prompt questions:

• What’s working well in your area when it comes to accessibility, representation, and preparation?
• Where are the gaps or barriers that currently make your curriculum less inclusive?
• What support would you need to make improvements in these areas?

Feedback was captured against each principle for all six curriculum dimensions. The summary table below presents key themes and suggestions raised during these roundtable discussions. This collective insight offers a practical snapshot of current strengths, challenges, and opportunities for embedding inclusion more effectively across the curriculum lifecycle.

Dimension		What’s working well?	Where are the gaps or barriers?	What support is needed?
Concept	Accessibility	Welcome slides and introductions to spaces used effectively.	No consistent digital student handbook; unclear communication of expectations.	Shared digital hub to help staff design the programme navigation in addition to the curriculum.
	Representation	Student forums used to inform decisions. Diverse thinkers introduced into reading lists.	Risk of assumptions; diversity initiatives feel tokenistic.	Toolkit or guidance to foster inclusive thinking.
	Preparation	Staff share inclusive practices transparently.	Spaces still not fully inclusive or co-created.	Opportunities for students to input into design via lived experience.
Content	Accessibility	Thoughtful use of inclusive language and contextual resources.	Physical access to equipment remains inconsistent.	Better profiling of student needs at programme start.
	Representation	Broader literature searches starting to include more diverse sources.	Search tools return stereotypical or narrow content.	Training/support for inclusive content selection.
	Preparation	Inclusion of topical issues such as AI to support engagement.	Lack of shared understanding of terminology; missing glossaries.	Course-specific contextual glossaries.
Learning & Teaching	Accessibility	Willingness to adapt and consult with students.	Time constraints limit deep consultation.	Institutional time/resources for meaningful dialogue.
	Representation	Students sometimes invited to share their perspectives.	Risk of tokenism; reliance on single "types" of voices.	Structured methods to surface wider student voice.
	Preparation	Awareness of need to explain academic expectations growing.	Language and disciplinary jargon are barriers to engagement.	Induction to “how to learn” in the subject discipline.
Assessment	Accessibility	Flexible formats (e.g. choice of assessment type) trialled.	Institutional constraints (e.g. AI fears, compliance) restrict innovation.	Support for developing authentic, creative assessments.
	Representation	Use of different assessment types like public speaking or media.	Equity between formats is not guaranteed.	Help with sourcing or designing diverse assessment styles.
	Preparation	Clear briefs and real-world cases used to build relevance.	Lack of clarity on how to access and understand new formats.	Skills workshops to upskill staff and students for unfamiliar formats.
Feedback	Accessibility	Formative feedback normalised; low-stakes use encouraged.	Large-scale assessments offer little feedback; clunky for setting and marking systems.	More flexibility in mode (e.g. audio) and format.
	Representation	Staff encourage diverse lenses in feedback discussions.	Students feel pressure to appear perfect.	Cultural shift to make feedback a normal, supported process.
	Preparation	Feedback used for learning, not just grading.	Feedback is often disconnected from programme-level learning.	Programme-level coordination of feedback processes.
Evaluation & Monitoring	Accessibility	Existing surveys and committees capture some voice.	Data inconsistent across programmes or difficult to compare.	Paid student evaluator roles to deepen insight.
	Representation	Alumni contributions provide external validation.	Teaching undervalued vs. research meaning it is less prioritised by staff	Institutional recognition of inclusive teaching.
	Preparation	Exit conversations used for long-term insights.	Use of evaluation varies, with some missed opportunities.	Frameworks for ongoing, systematic evaluation.

Summary and Future Directions

The roundtable discussions offered valuable insights into both the strengths and gaps in current inclusive curriculum practices. Across all dimensions, participants recognised strong intentions and pockets of innovation—particularly where educators had trialled authentic assessments or embedded student voice meaningfully. However, barriers persist, especially where inclusive practice relies on individual effort rather than systemic support.

To move forward, we recommend:

1. Developing shared infrastructure, such as digital hubs and glossaries, to reduce redundancy and improve clarity.
2. Investing in staff and student partnerships, including paid roles for evaluation and design, to support lived-experience-informed curricula.
3. Reframing institutional narratives to value inclusion and teaching excellence as strategic priorities.
4. Coordinating feedback and evaluation at the programme level to better inform continuous improvement.

Embedding inclusion into every stage of the curriculum lifecycle requires time, intention, and collaboration—but with clear frameworks and collective effort, it is both achievable and impactful.

References

Carey, P. (2012). Exploring variation in nurse educators’ perceptions of the inclusive curriculum. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(7), pp.741–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.516773. 

Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive Learning and Teaching in Higher education: a Synthesis of Research, Advance-HE.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/inclusive-learning-and-teaching-higher-education-synthesis-research. [last accessed: 15/04/2025] 

McDuff, N., Hughes, A., Tatam, J., Morrow, E. and Ross, F. (2020). Improving equality of opportunity in higher education through the adoption of an Inclusive Curriculum Framework. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 22(2), pp.83–121.https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.83. 

Mills, J. and Ayre, M. (2003). Implementing an Inclusive Curriculum for Women in Engineering Education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 129(4), pp.203–210. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1052-3928(2003)129:4(203). 

Smucker, A.D. (2024). Exploring the growth of inclusive curriculum: A systematic review of scholar and practitioner perspectives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(12), pp.1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2121

Dr Matt Mears (he/him/they/them) is a Senior University Teacher in Physics within the School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and has been responsible for the second year laboratory on and off since 2012. You can contact him by email (m.mears@sheffield.ac.uk) or just put a coffee chat into their diary.