Inclusivity is undoubtedly a growing area of consideration for teaching, and indeed for many of us perhaps the most important aspect of course design. At the 2021 Society for Cinema and Media Studies conference, for instance, pedagogically-focused workshops and roundtables included topics like diversity in comics, inclusivity in remote learning, and teaching screenwriters how to write against stereotypes. Typically, though, efforts to promote inclusivity have focused on content, such as decolonizing film lists and making the author lists on syllabi more gender equitable. While we support these efforts—and indeed we all practice this form of inclusivity, too—we recognize that content is only one aspect of teaching. To fully establish a learning environment wherein all students have the opportunity to be successful, diversity, equity, and inclusion must also be considered in course design.

Universal design for learning (UDL) is a framework for course design in which flexibility and variation are considered the key to allowing all learners to achieve (CAST 2018). CAST, the organization that developed UDL, describes its mission as reducing “barriers to learning that millions of people experience every day.”[1] At its most simplistic level, UDL asks instructors to consider three primary areas of course design. “Multiple means of engagement” in the course includes choices for assignments and readings to make learning feel more purposeful and students to feel more autonomous. “Multiple means of representation” describes course materials that are varied in form and format, utilizing best practices like including captions and transcripts with videos. “Multiple means of reflection” refers to the varied ways students are asked to demonstrate their learning; for instance, an assignment could allow for students to submit a written essay or make a podcast. Through this multiplicity across areas of course design, CAST alleges, instructors can ensure their course reaches all students at some point.

The UDL guidelines generally used by instructors date to 2008, but since 2020, CAST and other pedagogically-focused institutions have sought to challenge the “universal” in “universal design for learning.” In 2020, for instance, CAST launched an initiative to focus more on equity-minded education. Though identity markers are not included in CAST’s press releases and surveys, individual university teaching and learning centers have been more explicit about the need to push back against UDL’s promise of universality in favor of explicitly anti-racist and decolonial course design, as well as content. Likewise, many instructors and teaching centers emphasize the importance of emotion as part of the learning experience. The University of Michigan’s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, for instance, describes students feeling “valued and supported in their learning” as one of the explicit objectives of an equity-focused teaching environment.[2] For others, UDL is the best way to achieve anti-racism, gender equity, and other aspects of DEI. The Center for Innovative Learning and Teaching at Indiana University, in contrast to Michigan, names UDL directly as one way to achieve equitable assignment design.[3]

Although the contributors to this dossier range in their acceptance of and disputes over whether UDL can live up to its promise of universal inclusivity, the essays featured here all begin with the implementation of some UDL principles. While UDL has been greatly studied in the scholarship of teaching and learning, it has received less attention in pedagogical publications and conferences in film and media studies. The specifics of our discipline necessitate further investigation into how UDL might be implemented and what its benefits or limitations might be for courses in our field. Within some media courses, format of content delivery can be rigid. Students may participate in specific screening labs, during which little to no active discussion or reflection occurs. In production courses, students must engage with a specific representation (i.e. their assignments must be completed as digital video); it is not possible for them to opt for a different mode of representation and still be successful in the course. As this dossier will show, within these constraints remain abundant opportunities for accessibility and inclusivity through the strategies and practices of UDL.

We have also observed a growing slippage between media studies and media production courses, particularly in terms of student skills and students’ desired formats for assignments. The growth of video essays or videographic criticism, for instance, is a “commingling of the object with the critical discourse about it” that demonstrates how media production skills can be part of critical media studies.[4] Given that media itself is an often an essential part of UDL, UDL’s relative absence in discussions of film and media studies pedagogy seems glaring. The essays in this dossier offer several practical suggestions for making course design more inclusive, as well as more theoretical considerations for the possible limits or exceptions to UDL.

This dossier contains five essays in which the incorporation of UDL in media studies courses is examined. The first three essays report on real-word experiences implementing UDL. The authors reflect on what worked and what didn’t and offer suggestions for how others may benefit from their experiences. Dana Och and Alison Patterson describe their implementation of UDL in an asynchronous online class studying disability and embodiment. Given the course’s focus, the implementation of a course design that foregrounded accessibility and inclusion seemed logical. As a result of their work, Och and Patterson suggest a simple model for implementing inclusive course design: specifications grading or a similar alternative grading model that allows for more student autonomy and risk-taking than a traditional A-F weighted grading system might. Carter Moulton sees inclusive course design as part of a teaching philosophy that emphasizes respect and humanization of students. Moulton describes his experiences co-creating a digital media course and co-learning alongside students. Through this collaborative process, Moulton argues, both he and the students benefit as students are more likely to be engaged and feel the course has relevance to their lives. Bridget Kies similarly draws on experience implementing UDL in a queer media course. Kies describes how allowing students to determine what kind of assignments to create and to select course readings and screenings enabled them to “queer” the syllabus in ways that proved inclusive not only in terms of learning and course design but also in terms of representing a wider range of LGBTIQA experiences.

Offering a counterpoint to this discussion are essays by Jennifer Alpert and Elizabeth Ellcessor, both of whom want to unsettle the “universal” in universal design for learning. Jennifer Alpert creates courses using Multicultural Design for Learning (MDL), a framework that builds on UDL but considers content, not just delivery. For Alpert, MDL expands UDL’s promise by eradicating social barriers and obstacles, as well as cognitive ones. Finally, Elizabeth Ellcessor finds that UDL’s claims of universality are a one-size-fits-all solution to accessibility that is contrast to disability justice approaches, which emphasize ongoing adaptation and flexibility. Ellcessor argues for a consideration of UDL as praxis, rather than theory, and one that draws on negotiation and collaboration instead of top-down course design.

While the contributors’ relationships to UDL vary, we hope this dossier will provide a useful starting point to a larger conversation about how course design must be part of contemporary efforts to diversify, radicalize, and decolonize courses, in addition to course content itself. For instructors familiar with inclusive course design practices, this dossier presents some considerations about how to expand and retool UDL for film and media studies alongside other contemporary trends in course design, such as ungrading. For instructors unfamiliar with UDL, this dossier provides practical, easy steps toward creating courses that are more focused on equity and inclusion.

1. “About CAST,” CAST.org, accessed July 1, 2022, https://www.cast.org/. ↑

2. CRLT, “Our Shift toward Equity-Focused Teaching,” accessed July 1, 2022, https://crlt.umich.edu/equity-focused-teaching. ↑

3. Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning, “Equitable Assignment Design,” accessed July 1, 2022, https://citl.indiana.edu/teaching-resources/diversity-inclusion/equitable-assignments/index.html. ↑

4. Christian Keathley and Jason Mittell, “Scholarship in Sound and Image: A Pedagogical Essay,” December 21, 2019, http://videographicessay.org/works/videographic-essay/scholarship-in-sound—image. ↑