In recent years, the diversity of the student population in higher education settings has increased and is becoming widely recognized. Social surveys indicate that student bodies at German universities are becoming increasingly diverse (Kroher et al., 2023; Middendorf et al., 2017). According to these surveys, approximately 24% of students have disabilities, around 12% have caregiving responsibilities, 17% have a migrant background, and about 15% are international students. This development affects the entire European higher education (HE) landscape, as reflected within the EU educational policy context: Social and societal challenges must be addressed by “ensuring that higher education is inclusive, open to talent from all backgrounds [...]” (EU agenda for HE, 2017).

The concept of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has been identified as a promising approach to addressing the diverse requirements and learning needs of students in HE (Cumming & Rose, 2022; Reardon et al., 2021; Schütt & Peschke, 2024). UDL originates from the universal design movement of the 1970s, which initially focused on accessibility in architecture. The goal was to design buildings and environments that are usable by all people in the long term, without the need for special adaptations for specific groups (Fisseler & Markmann, 2012). These universal principles have since been transferred to education, where they aim to ensure access to learning processes for all students despite individual differences. By reducing barriers to learning, UDL benefits all learners (Fisseler & Markmann, 2012).

The overarching aim of UDL is to design teaching and learning environments to be inclusive from the outset, thereby achieving the best possible fit for a diverse student population. At the same time, this proactive approach reduces the need for individual accommodations such as disadvantage compensation (Fornauf & Dangora Erickson, 2020; Peschke & Schütt, 2024). Learner agency plays a central role within this framework. UDL is commonly operationalized through three core principles: (1) designing multiple means of engagement, (2) designing multiple means of representation, and (3) designing multiple means of action and expression (CAST, 2024).

In Germany, experience with UDL in higher education remains limited. To date, its application has largely been confined to educational studies and teacher education at selected universities (Bartz et al., 2018; Schütt & Degenhardt, 2020). Against this backdrop, the project “UD[L]ehre: More Universal Design for Learning in Teaching”, funded by the Foundation for Innovation in Higher Education Teaching (Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre), aims to strengthen teaching at the University of Hamburg. The project actively supports lecturers from all disciplines in designing courses based on UDL principles in order to reduce barriers. To this end, information and advisory services are being developed, and financial resources are provided for the implementation of concrete teaching concepts. Through collaboration with various institutional stakeholders and lecturers, the project seeks to establish UDL at the University of Hamburg on a long-term basis. A key foundation for this endeavor is the systematic review and synthesis of theoretical and empirical literature on UDL, which serves to inform and support evidence-based practical implementation.

The data analyzed in this study stem from the project “UD[L]ehre: More Universal Design for Learning in Teaching”. One central objective of the project is to conduct a structured literature review of existing publications on Universal Design for Learning (UDL), following established review methodologies (Earley, 2014; Newman & Gough, 2020). The review aims to provide a systematic, transparent, and thematically organized synthesis of current knowledge on the use and implementation of UDL in higher education. The review was designed to map the state of research on UDL in university teaching and to identify empirically grounded best practice of UDL in higher education. This comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence forms a key foundation for the promotion of new UDL-based teaching concepts at the University of Hamburg. By drawing on insights from prior research and established expertise, the funded teaching projects are enabled to build on proven approaches while simultaneously fostering innovation. The review addresses the following guiding research questions: How is UDL implemented in higher education teaching? Which implementation strategies and practices have proven successful? Publications were selected based on their relevance to higher education, publication date (2015–2026), and language (German and English). In terms of content, the review concentrated on two core areas: (1) best practice examples of UDL implementation, and (2) implementation conditions, including institutional frameworks as well as faculty commitment and attitudes. No disciplinary restrictions were applied, provided the publications addressed higher education contexts. The selection process involved multiple screening rounds and independent reviews of titles and abstracts to enhance reliability. A total of approximately 40 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. These publications were analyzed thematically and synthesized to identify central patterns, recurring themes, and key findings. Particular emphasis was placed on systematically extracting and consolidating diverse best practice examples in order to generate transferable insights and concrete starting points for lecturers and institutions interested in adopting UDL. The results of the review have already been used to develop a digital pool of ideas that brings all together and curates best practice examples from a wide range of sources. This resource serves as a practical, evidence-informed tool for university lecturers. In addition to the review findings, new best practice examples and communities of practice in the project “UD[L]ehre: More Universal Design for Learning in Teaching” are scientifically monitored and processed. This results in project-generated findings that further enrich the review.

The literature review indicates that best practice implementations of Universal Design for Learning can be found across a wide range of disciplines; however, there remains a strong imbalance toward the field of educational sciences. Studies show that learning opportunities designed with UDL have a positive impact on learning success and motivation (e.g. the use of subtitles, increased learner agency). The same observations can be made in the field of online and blended learning. It has also been shown that implementing UDL can have a positive effect on university lecturers, e.g. by reducing stress. Furthermore, it confirms that the UDL approach to proactively removing barriers reduces the need for disadvantage compensation. But it is very important to note that the positive effects are not limited to students with disabilities. The review also highlights that successful implementation of UDL is facilitated by specific parameters: consistency over time, incentive structures for faculty members, and systematic dissemination across the institution. Current research gaps include the support structures for educators in the UDL-implementation process. However, it is assumed that long-term qualification support and opportunities for exchange between different disciplines (communities of practice), would be beneficial. The literature also indicates the importance of best practice examples in order to convey to lecturers how UDL can be used and implemented. The Hamburg UDL project builds on the findings from the review. On the one hand, the documentation and preparation of best practices across different disciplines is a key objective. On the other hand, constant support for teachers and the establishment of communities of practice is another pillar of the project. For this reason, the UDL implementations supported are closely monitored, supported in terms of reflection and exchange, and enriched with information. The observation made in the process will be incorporated into the UDL research corpus.

Bartz, J., Feldhues, K., Goll, T., Kanschik, D., Hüninghake, R., Krabbe, C., Lauterbach, F., & Trapp, R. (2018). Das Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in der inklusionsorientierten Hochschullehre: Eine interdisziplinäre Bestandsaufnahme aus Sicht der Fachdidaktiken Chemie, Germanistik, Sachunterricht, Sport, Theologie und der Rehabilitationswissenschaft. In S. Hußmann & B. Welzel (Hg.), DoProfiL – Das Dortmunder Profil für inklusionsorientierte Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, 93–108. CAST (2024). CAST Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. Retrieved from https://udlguidelines.cast.org. Cumming, T.M., & Rose, M.C. (2022). Exploring universal design for learning as an accessibility tool in higher education: a review of the current literature. The Australian ducational Researcher, 49(5), 1025–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00471-7. Earley, M. A. (2014). A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.860105. EU-Agende for higher education (2017). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0247. Fisseler, B. & Markmann, M. (2012). Universal Design als Umgang mit Diversität in der Hochschule. In: Journal Hochschuldidaktik, 23 (1-2), 13–16. Fornauf, B. S., & Dangora Erickson, J. (2020). Toward an inclusive pedagogy through Universal Design for Learning in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 183–199. Kroher, M., Beuße, M., Isleib, S., Becker, K., Ehrhardt, M.-C., Gerdes, F., Koopmann, J., Schommer, T., Schwabe, U., Steinkühler, J., Völk, D., Peter, F., & Buchholz, S. (2023). Die Studierendenbefragung in Deutschland: 22. Sozialerhebung: Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Studierenden in Deutschland 2021.https://www.diestudierendenbefragung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Download/22_Sozialerhebung.pdf. Middendorf, E., Apolinarski, B., Becker, K., Bornkessel, P., Brandt, T., Heißenberg, S., & Poskowsky, J. (2017). Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Studierenden in Deutschland 2016: 21. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerks durchgeführt vom Deutschen Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung. https://www.dzhw.eu/pdf/sozialerhebung/21/Soz21_hauptbericht_barrierefrei.pdf. Newman, M., Gough, D. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. In: Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K. (eds) Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1. Reardon, K., Bromley, K.W., & Unruth, D. (2021). The Promise of Universal Design in Postsecondary Education: A Literature Review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 34(3), 209–221. Rowley, J. & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a Literature Review. In: Management Research News, 27 (6), S. 31–39. Schütt, M.-L., & Degenhardt, S. (2020). Universal Design for Learning in der Hamburger Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. Seminar (4), 18–31. Schütt, M.-L.; Peschke, S. (2024). Chancen und Herausforderungen bei der Anwendung des universellen Designs (Universal Design) in der Hochschullehre, 47–57. 10.14361/9783839469385-004.