Accessible Educational Material for Higher Education Students with Disabilities: Knowledge and Skills of Teaching Staff

Abstract

Students with disabilities in higher education often encounter challenges that hinder their graduation rates and impede their fundamental right to quality education. One significant barrier is the lack of accessible educational materials, which restricts their ability to acquire knowledge. University faculty respond positively to inclusive teaching practices, but they lack the relevant knowledge, skills, and experience. The study aimed to examine the knowledge of the higher education teaching staff regarding the types and forms of accessible educational materials, as well as their experience in using and developing such materials. Additionally, it explored their involvement in distance education programs and courses for students with disabilities and their related needs. Thirty-six members of the teaching staff, from Italy, Germany, Greece, and Spain, participated in interviews, and 131 members of the teaching staff in questionnaire-based research. The results showed that participants may present limited knowledge of accessible materials used by students with disabilities and appear to be even less experienced in developing and utilizing such materials. Teaching staff tend to be familiar only with the types of educational materials they regularly use in their teaching practice. Overall, the findings suggest that teacher training and upskilling initiatives remain the foundation of progress, but more massive approaches should be implemented.

1. Introduction

Access to education for students with disabilities plays a crucial role in promoting their academic success, ensuring equal opportunities (Beyene et al. 2020), and fostering greater motivation for learning (Joyner et al. 2016). Ideally, higher education institutions should be designed to support the inclusion of students with disabilities, creating environments conducive to their academic completion (Martins et al. 2017). However, students with disabilities in higher education often encounter challenges that hinder their graduation rates (Mack 2022), thus impeding their fundamental right to quality education. One significant barrier is the lack of accessible educational materials, which restricts their ability to acquire knowledge, a key factor for academic success (Firat 2021; Mack 2022; Martins et al. 2017). Firat’s research highlights additional challenges such as instructors’ neglect of these students in class and the absence of appropriate materials and lecture notes (Firat 2021).

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offers a solution by enabling independent access to learning materials for students with disabilities (Cumming and Rose 2022) and has the potential to improve success rates for all students (Pittman and Heiselt 2014). Additionally, assistive technologies are essential in facilitating access to learning for students with disabilities (Ndlovu 2021). Papadopoulos et al. (2024) conducted an in-depth analysis on the assistive technology acknowledged, utilized, or desired by students with disabilities in both academic and domestic settings. McNicholl et al. (2019) demonstrate that assistive technology significantly improves the academic performance and engagement of students with disabilities. While assistive technology offers significant benefits, it can also present challenges (Bong and Chen 2021; Seale et al. 2015; van Rooij and Zirkle 2016). Students with disabilities need to acquire the necessary skills to effectively use assistive technology (Clouder et al. 2018; Kisanga and Kisanga 2020) and receive guidance in selecting the most suitable tools (Clouder et al. 2018). Additionally, both teachers and students should receive training from assistive technology professionals (Atanga et al. 2020; Fernández-Batanero et al. 2022; Pacheco et al. 2020).

Research shows that university faculty respond positively to inclusive teaching practices, which are vital for creating accessible learning environments (O’Connor et al. 2012). Previous studies have focused on improving the competence of university staff in providing accessible services and inclusive digital learning environments (Bong and Chen 2021). Learning materials should be available in various formats (e.g., text, audio, video, Braille) to ensure accessibility for all students, regardless of disability (Nganji 2018). For instance, a blind student using a screen reader may prefer an HTML version of the material, which is more compatible with their assistive technology, over a PDF version (Nganji 2018).

However, teachers often receive training in specific content or pedagogy without this leading to a culture alteration (Haney and Lumpe 1995). Faculty members often lack practical knowledge of making digital learning materials accessible and are less familiar with universal design principles (Sanderson et al. 2022). Accessibility often depends on individual professors’ initiative (Dogucu et al. 2023; Kumar and Wideman 2014), and academic staff frequently lack the knowledge and training to support students with disabilities (Bunbury 2018), though this varies across departments (Weatherton et al. 2017). This can result in negative perceptions of students’ abilities, which may affect their participation in social and extracurricular activities (Madriaga et al. 2011; Sachs and Schreuer 2011). Students often prefer materials produced by professors rather than external sources, as they perceive professor-created materials to be more useful during and after lessons (Dean et al. 2017).

Moriña et al. (2023) highlight the need for improved teacher training to enhance the effective and accessible use of technology in education. Pearson and Koppi (2006) argue that supporting academic staff through empathy-building activities and specialized training is crucial for integrating accessibility into e-learning strategies. This aligns with the broader goals of inclusive education, as discussed by McPherson et al. (2019), who emphasize embedding inclusive practices across STEM disciplines. Faculty and staff should receive training on how to create accessible materials and engage students with disabilities in online environments.

Distance education (DE) offers the potential to enhance educational opportunities for students with disabilities by using technologies that promote independence in accessing and managing learning materials (Rezak and Pankrateva 2020). To achieve this, distance learning administrators must ensure that instructors and instructional designers have the necessary tools, technology, and support to develop universally accessible courses (Pittman and Heiselt 2014). On the other hand, achieving an inclusive and engaging online community requires intentional efforts to foster positive interactions among students and prevent discrimination and harassment (Nunes and Chahini 2022). This involves not only adapting teaching materials but also addressing the broader socio-educational attitudes that often marginalize students with disabilities.

Technical challenges remain a key issue in ensuring all course materials are accessible to students with various disabilities. These challenges include providing captions for videos to support students with hearing impairments, adding alt text for images to assist students with visual impairments, and ensuring compatibility with screen readers and other assistive devices (Beach and Bagne 2015). Furthermore, online platforms must be user-friendly and easily navigable to support all learners effectively (Khribi 2022).

2. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki. In addition, informed consent was obtained from each participant. The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the University Committee for Research Ethics. The study presented in this article constitutes a part of the broader research conducted within the HEDforALL European project. HEDforALL is designed to enhance the inclusion of students with visual impairments, hearing impairments, physical/mobility impairments, and specific learning disabilities in higher education institutions. The present study aims to identify (a) the knowledge of the teaching staff about the several types/forms of accessible educational materials and their features, (b) the experience of teaching staff in using and/or developing several types/forms of accessible educational materials, and (c) the experience of teaching staff in DE programs/courses for students with disabilities, the professional needs revealed for the DE, and the adaptations that the teaching staff have made to the education during DE programs.

This study employed a mixed-methods research design, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The qualitative phase served as the foundation of the study and was conducted through semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted with participating members of teaching staff at universities in four countries (Greece, Germany, Spain, and Italy). The interview guide consisted of open-ended questions aimed at exploring participants’ perceptions, experiences, and attitudes in depth. The data collected from the qualitative phase were analyzed using thematic analysis, which allowed for the identification of key themes and the components related to research objectives. The findings from the qualitative analysis of the interviews were used for the design of questionnaires that were answered by the members of the teaching staff in the second phase of this study. The design of the questionnaires, apart from the findings of interviews, was based on the extensive previous experience of the authors in the production of accessible educational materials for students with disabilities. In addition, the findings of a survey carried out within the same project, involving students with disabilities (Papadopoulos et al. 2023), were also used.

2.1. Qualitative Research

2.1.1. Participants

A total of 36 members of the teaching staff were interviewed: 6 from Italy, 14 from Germany, 8 from Spain, and 8 from Greece. The sample consisted of 22 women and 14 men. The age ranged from 26 years to 65 years (mean = 46.9). A total of 15 participants were lecturers, special teaching staff, lab staff, or special technical lab staff, and 21 were professors. A total of 33 participants were full-time employees, while 3 participants stated that they worked on a part-time basis.

A total of 32 participants taught an average of 7.2 courses with DE methods (min = 1 course, max = 40 courses, and 4 participants mentioned that they had not taught any course with DE methods. The average hours taught in courses with DE methods were 250 (min = 2 h, max = 1000 h). Twenty-four participants answered that they do not have support available from a technology/computer support person or an accessibility advisor to assist them in implementing instructional technologies in their classroom curriculum, while nine answered that they do have this support, and three answered that they do not know if they can access this support and how.

2.1.2. Instruments and Procedures

The interviews were conducted either online or in person. The researchers were given specific instructions on how to perform the interview procedure and an introductory text to be read aloud to participants before the interview. The introductory text provided the participants with information on the purpose of the study and the procedure to be followed. The researchers recorded (audio recording) the whole interview. Apart from the questions of the interview, each participant, at the beginning of the interview, was asked to answer questions concerning their individual/demographic data. The interview questions answered by the participants were the following:

• Please mention what types/forms of accessible educational material you are aware that is used by students with disabilities, irrespective of whether you have ever developed or used any of these. In your answer, please also include any alternative types/forms of accessible material that you are aware exist by mentioning separately each one of the alternative forms of material.
• Please mention what types/forms of accessible educational material you are capable of producing by yourself (i.e., you have the knowledge and experience to do so) without any help from others. In your answer, please also include any alternative types/forms of accessible material.
• Please mention if you have participated (as teaching staff or supporting personnel) in DE programs/courses with students with disabilities as participants.
• How many DE programs have you participated in (as teaching staff) and the disability (e.g., visual impairments, hearing impairments, etc.) of the participating students?
• Please give a brief description of the adaptations made to the educational materials for each group of students with disabilities (based on their disability) who participated in DE programs to enable accessibility.
• Thinking of your own professional development needs concerning the DE for students with disabilities, please indicate the extent to which you have such needs in each of the areas listed: (a) teaching students with special needs, (b) creating accessible educational material, and (c) knowledge and understanding of instructional practices of DE for students with disabilities.

Qualitative data collection, involving interview recordings and transcriptions, was carried out. Subsequently, thematic analysis was employed to categorize the content into themes derived from the text. The methodology followed included the following stages: (a) familiarization with the data (reading all responses to gain a thorough understanding of the content), (b) initial coding (highlighting or noting each form/type of accessible material mentioned), (c) grouping of codes into themes, (d) reviewing and refining the themes, (e) defining and naming the themes (clearly describing each theme), and (f) reporting the findings. Three of the authors collaboratively categorized each statement within the transcribed interviews to safeguard against researcher bias that could potentially affect their data interpretation. The analysis revealed three themes: (1) accessible printed material, (2) accessible digital material, and (3) audio–tactile material.

2.2. Quantitative Research

2.2.1. Participants

Participants were 131 members of teaching staff: 48 from Italy, 25 from Germany, 24 from Spain, and 34 from Greece. The participants’ ages ranged from 22 to 68 (mean = 49.8) years, and their experience as teaching staff was on average 18.7 years. A total of 55 of the participants were males, 74 were females, and 2 identified as gender diverse. A total of 9 of the participants were graduates of studies related to the education of persons with disabilities (2 were graduates of a bachelor and 9 were graduates of a postgraduate program), and 27 attended a seminar that provided relevant training. The remaining 93 participants did not have any relevant training.

2.2.2. Instruments and Procedures

In this study, a self-reported questionnaire consisting of closed-ended questions was used. The questionnaire consisted of a list of items concerning the types/forms of adapted accessible educational materials (see Table 3). The participants answered the following three questions concerning the educational material: (Q1) To what extent do you know (are you aware of the features of) this educational material? (Q2) To what extent have you used this educational material? (Q3) What is your experience in producing this type of educational material? The answers of the participants to these questions were given by using a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 1 = small, 2 = medium, 3 = great, 4 = very great).

The questionnaire includes, also, two questions on the experience of the teaching staff concerning DE for students with disabilities: (Q1) What is your experience in DE of students with disabilities? (Q2) To what degree are you considered to have the knowledge and experience to provide DE for students with disabilities? The answers of the participants to these two questions were given by using a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 1 = limited, 2 = moderate, 3 = extensive, 4 = very extensive).

3. Results

3.1. Qualitative Research

3.1.1. Answers to the First and Second Interview Questions

Table 1. Types/forms of accessible educational material mentioned (marked with an asterisk) by the teaching staff for questions Q1 and Q2.

Accessible Printed Material	Q1	Q2
Braille prints (including Braille books)	*	*
Large prints (including enlarged books)	*
Tactile books, graphics, images	*	*
Tactile maps	*
Tactile graphics/pictures in microcapsule paper (e.g., Piaf prints)	*
Embossed paper prints	*
Plastic paper prints—thermoform	*
Tiger printed tactile graphics/pictures	*	*
3D printed material	*
Serious games (the educational process takes place through the game)	*	*
Concept maps	*
Accessible digital material	Q1	Q2
Accessible text (books, notes, etc.)	*	*
Accessible word	*	*
Accessible pdf	*	*
Accessible epub	*
Accessible Daisy	*
Accessible PowerPoint	*	*
Digital texts with simplified language	*	*
Digital books with legible texts (e.g., arial fonts, Tahoma, San serif, Helvetica)	*	*
Audio recorded material	*	*
Audio books	*
Audio descriptions	*
Audio recorded lectures	*	*
Audio recorded lessons with subtitles	*	*
Pictures with verbal/audio description	*	*
Pictures with alternative text	*	*
Accessible paintings (images)	*
Accessible videos	*	*
Videos with captions	*
Videos with transcription	*	*
Videos with subtitles	*	*
Educational videos	*	*
Multimodal material	*
Accessible mathematical equations	*	*
METACOM symbols	*	*
Accessible websites	*	*
Digital conceptual/mental maps	*	*
Sign language translated material	*
Serious games (the educational process takes place through the game)	*
Educational games	*	*
Audio tactile material	Q1	Q2
Audio tactile graphics/images	*	*

depicts the answers from teaching staff in the first (Q1) and second (Q2) interview questions. The asterisks in column Q1 represent the types/forms of accessible educational material that some of the participants reported being aware are used by students with disabilities. Correspondingly, the asterisks in column Q2 represent the types/forms of accessible material that some of the participants are able to produce themselves.

The findings reveal that participants are able to produce fewer types of accessible educational materials than those they are aware are utilized by students with disabilities.

3.1.2. Answers to the Third and Fourth Interview Questions

Concerning their former participation in DE programs or courses with student/s with disabilities as participant/s (third interview question), 20 participants answered that they had participated in such programs, 12 responded negatively, and 4 answered that they had participated in DE programs but did not know if any student/s with disabilities had participated in these programs as a trainee.

Eighteen of the participants answered the fourth interview question. These participants had taught an average of approximately two programs in which students with disabilities participated as trainees. Nine participants stated that they had taught students with hearing impairments, seven had taught students with visual impairments, four had taught students with mobility impairments or learning difficulties, and two had taught students with psychological disorders.

3.1.3. Answers to the Fifth and Sixth Interview Questions

Table 2. Adaptations to the educational material for each group of students with disabilities who participated in DE. The values represent the number of participants who stated that they applied each adaptation.

Students with Visual Impairments

Color corrected texts

Accessible word

Accessible pdf

Images with alternative text

Digital books with legible texts (e.g., Arial fonts, Tahoma, San serif, Helvetica)

Accessible presentations (PowerPoint)

Braille prints

3D printed material (with different textures)

Accessible digital material

Audio recorded material

Students with hearing impairments

Audio recorded material transcribed to text

Videos with subtitles

Lessons on Zoom with subtitles

Recorded lectures

Accessible presentations (with subtitles)

Students with learning difficulties

Accessible presentations (fonts, spaces, etc.)

Gamification of lesson/Serious games

Recorded lectures

Adapted examinations

Organizational aids (concept maps, summaries, etc.)

shows the frequency of occurrence of participants’ answers in the fifth interview question concerning the adaptations they have made to educational material for each group of students with disabilities to make the DE programs accessible. Most adaptations aim to support the inclusion of students with visual impairments, while adaptations for students with physical impairments are absent.

Concerning their professional needs (sixth interview question), 34 participants have needs in the area of creating accessible educational material, 29 have needs in the area of knowledge and understanding of instructional practices of DE for students with disabilities, and 27 participants have needs in the area of teaching students with disabilities.

3.2. Quantitative Research

Table 3. Descriptive statistics results concerning the accessible educational material—means (m) and standard deviations (SDs).

Printed Material	Q1 (m)	Q1 (SD)	Q2 (m)	Q2 (SD)	Q3 (m)	Q3 (SD)
Braille prints (including braille books)	1.611	1.339	0.354	0.905	0.308	0.922
Large prints (including enlarged books)	1.754	1.409	0.646	1.120	0.504	1.039
Tactile books (Text and graphics)	1.214	1.370	0.225	0.721	0.351	0.859
Tactile graphics/images	1.328	1.356	0.297	0.777	0.351	0.944
Tactile maps	1.252	1.332	0.308	0.834	0.262	0.677
Printed conceptual/mental map	1.290	1.350	0.625	1.171	0.618	1.140
Microcapsule paper prints (e.g., Piaf prints)	0.546	1.100	0.264	0.805	0.279	0.884
Tiger embossed prints	0.531	1.065	0.240	0.836	0.310	0.891
Plastic paper prints/thermoform	0.602	1.060	0.211	0.810	0.321	0.806
3D printed material (by 3D printer)	1.233	1.308	0.328	0.785	0.321	0.757
Pictures with Braille description	1.123	1.251	0.328	0.852	0.248	0.791
Adapted books (added tactile pieces and images/picture annotation)	0.962	1.278	0.339	0.847	0.492	1.036
Accessible text (books, notes, etc.)	1.740	1.432	0.962	1.290	1.046	1.369
Printed Material—Total	1.166		0.398		0.418
Digital Material	Q1 (m)	Q1 (SD)	Q2 (m)	Q2 (SD)	Q3 (m)	Q3 (SD)
Accessible word	1.946	1.543	1.446	1.575	1.496	1.556
Accessible pdf	1.869	1.475	1.546	1.600	1.466	1.614
Accessible presentations (PowerPoint)	1.781	1.531	1.557	1.570	1.477	1.571
Accessible daisy	0.605	1.155	0.313	0.824	0.481	1.126
Accessible epub	0.815	1.316	0.562	1.194	0.496	1.105
Accessible excel files	1.492	1.521	1.023	1.422	0.831	1.295
eBooks	2.084	1.452	1.282	1.427	0.659	1.234
Digital books with legible texts (e.g., Arial fonts, Tahoma, San serif, Helvetica)	1.715	1.469	1.185	1.419	0.822	1.320
Digital texts with simplified language	1.354	1.499	0.740	1.219	0.500	1.050
Audio recorded material (e.g., lecture notes, books)	1.985	1.468	1.062	1.391	0.884	1.321
Audiobooks	2.107	1.464	0.814	1.316	0.519	1.047
Pictures with verbal–audio description	1.504	1.427	0.685	1.086	0.488	1.047
Images with alternative text	1.169	1.426	0.623	1.190	0.688	1.209
Videos with sign language	1.466	1.490	0.508	1.080	0.465	1.039
Videos with transcriptions (including YouTube, lectures)	1.718	1.541	1.000	1.346	0.875	1.298
Videos with subtitles	2.117	1.571	1.062	1.402	0.906	1.348
Live streaming with captions (e.g., lectures given synchronously online)	1.767	1.508	0.938	1.310	0.738	1.236
Digital conceptual/mental maps	1.313	1.499	0.863	1.335	0.578	1.147
Color corrected texts	1.046	1.493	0.588	1.066	0.656	1.239
Multimodal material (e.g., mixture of linguistic, visual, gestural, spatial and audio elements)	1.023	1.361	0.504	1.119	0.542	1.090
Serious games (the educational process takes place through the game)	1.331	1.512	1.015	1.463	0.723	1.251
METACOM symbols (Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC))	0.715	1.277	0.580	1.189	0.318	1.031
Accessible mathematical equations	0.748	1.315	0.496	1.119	0.315	0.973
Digital Material—Total	1.461		0.889		0.747
Haptic Material	Q1 (m)	Q1 (SD)	Q2 (m)	Q2 (SD)	Q3 (m)	Q3 (SD)
Haptic models (haptic pictures, graphs, maps etc., manufactured from everyday material attached onto a surface)	0.661	1.093	0.318	0.750	0.344	0.967
Manipulatives (plastic shapes/objects, tactile globes, tactile dolls)	0.744	1.194	0.344	0.943	0.388	0.921
Haptic Material—Total	0.705		0.329		0.376
Audio–tactile Material	Q1 (m)	Q1 (SD)	Q2 (m)	Q2 (SD)	Q3 (m)	Q3 (SD)
Audio–tactile pictures for IVEO/TTT (systems with audio–tactile feedback)	0.496	01.046	0.266	0.748	0.289	0.898
Educational Material—Total	0.951		0.468		0.455

presents the results of the descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) of the teaching staff responses for each item of the questionnaire and each of the three questions concerning the accessible educational material.

Taking into account the Likert scale options (0 = not at all, 1 = small, 2 = medium, 3 = great, 4 = very great) on which the participants’ responses were based, the values shown in Table 3 indicate in most cases very little knowledge and experience of the teaching staff regarding the use of accessible educational material. Specifically, the mean for question Q1 is 1.166 in the category “Printed Material,” indicating approximately “small” knowledge of the features of accessible educational material, 1.461 in the category “Digital Material,” indicating “small” to “medium” knowledge, 0.705 in the category “Haptic Material” indicating “small” to “not at all” knowledge, and 0.951 in the category “Audio–tactile Material” also indicating “small” knowledge. The results are even more disappointing for questions Q2 and Q3, where the means indicate that the teaching staff has used accessible educational material to a “small extent” or “not at all” and that they have experience in producing this material to a “small extent” or “not at all”.

Concerning the existing experience in DE of students with disabilities, the mean of the participant’s responses was 0.787 (SD = 0.923), while the mean of their responses was 1.046 (SD = 1.163) to the question regarding knowledge and experience in providing DE for students with disabilities. Taking into account the Likert scale options (0 = not at all, 1 = limited, 2 = moderate, 3 = extensive, 4 = very extensive) on which the participants’ responses were based, the mean scores indicate “limited” knowledge and experience of the teaching staff regarding the DE for students with disabilities.

In addition to the descriptive statistical analysis, repeated measures ANOVAs were applied (one for each of the four types of accessible educational material) to examine whether statistically significant differences emerged in the answers given by the participants to the three questions (Q1, Q2, and Q3) concerning accessible educational material. In addition, the General Linear Model was applied as a method of analysis to determine the individual/demographic characteristics of the participants that affect the participants’ knowledge and experience (one GLM analysis for each question).

Concerning the accessible printed material, the implementation of repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences (F = 111, p < 0.001, η² = 0.184, η²_p = 0.460). The Tukey post hoc test revealed differences in participants’ responses between Q1 and Q2 (p < 0.001) and between Q1 and Q3 (p < 0.001). Participants’ scores were higher for Q1 compared to their scores for Q2 and Q3.

For the accessible digital material, the implementation of repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences (F = 78.6, p < 0.001, η² = 0.106, η²_p = 0.377). The Tukey post hoc test revealed differences in participants’ responses between Q1 and Q2 (p < 0.001), Q1 and Q3 (p < 0.001), and between Q2 and Q3 (p < 0.001). Participants’ scores were higher for Q1 compared to their scores for Q2 and Q3. Moreover, participants’ scores were higher for Q2 compared to their scores for Q3.

Regarding the accessible haptic material, the implementation of repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences (F = 15.5, p < 0.001, η² = 0.033, η²_p = 0.108). The Tukey post hoc test revealed differences in participants’ responses between Q1 and Q2 (p < 0.001) and between Q1 and Q3 (p < 0.001). Participants’ scores were higher on the Q1 compared to their scores on Q2 and Q3.

Concerning the accessible audio-tactile material, the implementation of repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences (F = 6.47, p < 0.005, η² = 0.015, η²_p = 0.049). The Tukey post hoc test revealed differences in participants’ responses between Q1 and Q2 (p < 0.005) and between Q1 and Q3 (p < 0.05). Participants’ scores were higher for Q1 compared to their scores for Q2 and Q3.

The findings of the repeated measures ANOVA analysis suggest that although participants may be aware of some of the educational material and their features, they have not often used this educational material and do not have experience in producing accessible educational material. Furthermore, concerning accessible digital material, the analysis indicated that although participants may have used some types of digital educational material, they do not know how to produce this material.

In addition, the General Linear Model was applied as a method of analysis to determine the individual/demographic characteristics of the participants that affect the participants’ knowledge and experience (one GLM analysis for each question).

To examine the effect of the demographic/individual characteristics of the participants on their knowledge and experience regarding accessible educational material, the General Linear Model (GLM) was applied as a method of analysis. A total of three GLM analyses were applied, one for each dependent variable. The participants’ responses (total score) to each question (Q1, Q2, and Q3) were used as the dependent variable, and gender (males vs. females), age, and participation in training/education programs (variable training/education) related to the education of persons with disabilities (yes vs. no) were used as independent variables. For example, the participant’s responses (total score) for Q1 (variable Q1-score) is the average of the scores achieved in the four categories of accessible educational material (see Table 3, the “Educational Material—Total” row).

For the variable Q1-score, the analysis indicated that the model is statistically significant (F = 7.39, p < 0.001), with R² equal to 0.235 and adjusted R² equal to 0.204. The variables “training/education” (β = 0.813, p < 0.005) and “age” (β = 0.230, p < 0.01) have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable Q1-score. The “gender” variable is not statistically significant.

For the variable Q2-score, the analysis indicated that the model is statistically significant (F = 5.85, p < 0.001), with R² equal to 0.196 and adjusted R² equal to 0.163. The variable “age” (β = 0.388, p < 0.001) has a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable Q2-score. The other two variables are not statistically significant.

For the variable Q3-score, the analysis indicated that the model is statistically significant (F = 8.11, p < 0.001), with R² equal to 0.253 and adjusted R² equal to 0.221. The variable “age” (β = 0.458, p < 0.001) has a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable Q3-score. The other two variables are not statistically significant.

From the results of the GLM analysis, the statistically significant effect of the age of the participants on the scores for all three questions emerges. Participants with older ages have less knowledge about the features of accessible educational material compared to those who are younger in age (Q1), they also have less experience in using accessible educational material (Q2) and less experience in producing accessible educational material (Q3). Moreover, participants who had studies related to the education of persons with disabilities or had attended a seminar that provided relevant training had more knowledge about the features of accessible educational material compared to participants who had no relevant training.

4. Discussion

The study aimed to examine the knowledge of higher education teaching staff about the types and forms of accessible educational materials, as well as their experience in using and developing such materials. Additionally, it explored their involvement in DE programs and courses for students with disabilities, their related needs, and any adaptations they may have made to educational materials during DE.

Both the qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed that participants have limited knowledge of accessible educational materials used by students with disabilities. They appear to be even less experienced in developing and utilizing such materials. In many cases, accessible educational content is prepared by an institution’s accessibility unit, which may explain the teachers’ lack of familiarity with the development process. However, their limited understanding of accessible material features and lack of hands-on experience highlight that higher education institutions are not sufficiently prepared to support students with disabilities. The scarcity of accessible educational materials and their significance for students’ academic success have been previously emphasized (Firat 2021; Mack 2022; Martins et al. 2017). Moreover, previous studies have underscored the lack of practical knowledge among teachers regarding accessible digital learning materials (Sanderson et al. 2022) and their insufficient training in supporting students with disabilities (Bunbury 2018).

A more detailed analysis of participants’ responses indicates that teaching staff tend to be familiar only with the types of educational materials they regularly use in their teaching practice, which are traditionally considered primary teaching tools—such as text documents, Microsoft Word and PDF files, and PowerPoint presentations. However, researchers in the fields of educational accessibility and Universal Design for Learning have stressed the need for alternative formats of learning materials (e.g., text, audio, video, and tactile resources) to ensure that all students, regardless of disability, can access information in the format best suited to their needs (Nganji 2018). Offering diverse material formats can significantly improve student success rates (Pittman and Heiselt 2014).

Furthermore, the findings of the analysis suggest that although participants may be aware of some of the educational material and their features, they rarely use or develop them. This may stem from the training they received during their studies or lifelong learning initiatives, as well as from the absence of institutional or governmental policies and large-scale reforms. The presence of policies and regulations, combined with systematic efforts to accommodate and ensure equal access for students with disabilities in higher education, would likely encourage teaching staff to apply their knowledge in practice. Haney and Lumpe (1995) argue that teachers play a crucial role in educational reforms, but supplementary strategies—such as pilot programs, monitoring by local staff to ensure policy implementation, curriculum restructuring, and institutional reforms—are also essential.

Nevertheless, teaching staff training and upskilling initiatives remain the foundation of progress. Prior research highlights the importance of training opportunities in fostering the effective and accessible use of technology in education (Moriña et al. 2023) and integrating accessibility into e-learning strategies (Pearson and Koppi 2006). Consistent with these findings, our quantitative research identified age and special education training as key predictors of teachers’ knowledge of accessible educational materials. Younger participants and those who had received training in special education demonstrated greater familiarity and experience with accessible educational resources. This correlation may stem from the fact that younger educators are more likely to have participated in special education training programs that include instruction on accessible materials.

The inadequacy of purely theoretical training was evident in participants’ expressed needs during interviews. Nearly all participants emphasized the importance of enriching their professional skills by acquiring: (a) practical knowledge in creating accessible educational materials and (b) a deeper understanding of instructional practices for students with disabilities in both traditional and DE settings. Aligning with this, previous studies suggest that university staff generally support inclusive teaching practices (O’Connor et al. 2012) yet recognize their lack of practical knowledge in developing accessible materials and implementing universal design principles (Sanderson et al. 2022).

The findings of this study reveal gaps in higher education instructors’ knowledge and experience regarding accessible educational materials and their involvement in DE for students with disabilities. Based on these insights, several key implications for improving accessibility and inclusivity in higher education emerge:

• Training of Teaching Staff: There is a need for professional development focused on accessible content and UDL. Cumming and Rose (2022) in their review found that UDL is well supported by theory and promotes effective access for people with disabilities to use learning materials by themselves. Moreover, both students and instructors show high satisfaction rates for the UDL. Most importantly, universally designed educational material is not only helpful for students with disabilities but for students without disabilities as well (Kumar and Wideman 2014). Training should prioritize practical approaches for creating accessible materials in various formats (e.g., text, audio, video), incorporating real-world applications to equip teaching staff with the skills to foster accessible environments.
• Institutional Collaboration and Support: Since accessibility materials are typically created by specialized units, stronger collaboration between faculty and these units is essential. Institutions should facilitate communication to raise awareness of available resources and guide effective integration into teaching practices.
• Policy and Systemic Reform: Higher education institutions must develop policies that explicitly support inclusive education. These policies should outline guidelines for creating and distributing accessible materials and include mechanisms for evaluating their effectiveness.
• DE Accessibility: With the growing reliance on digital platforms, institutions need to ensure that e-learning strategies are inclusive from the start. This involves designing online platforms and digital content with accessibility in mind. Additionally, educational materials provided to distance learners with disabilities must be fully accessible.
• Alternative Learning Materials: Although educators primarily use traditional formats like text and PowerPoint, expanding the variety of learning materials (e.g., audio, video, tactile, audio–tactile, etc.) is crucial to better support students with disabilities. One of the three fundamental principles of UDL is the “Design of multiple means of representation” (CAST 2024). This entails the production of educational material in multiple ways so that every student can perceive information, concepts and ideas, understand language and symbols, and build knowledge (CAST 2024). The representation of materials in multiple and accessible forms and through multiple means ensures that every learner comprehends new information, is able to demonstrate the acquired knowledge and skills, and find the motivation to be engaged in educational processes (Hall et al. 2004).

By addressing these implications, higher education institutions can move toward a more inclusive and accessible learning environment that benefits all students, regardless of disability. This requires a concerted effort from educators, institutional leaders, and policymakers to create a supportive framework that prioritizes accessibility in both traditional and DE contexts.

Limitations

A limitation of the current research lies in the relatively limited number of participants involved in the qualitative component. Future research could benefit from engaging a larger and more diverse participant sample.

5. Conclusions

The findings underscore significant gaps in higher education teachers’ knowledge and experience related to accessible educational materials, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive professional development initiatives focused on accessible educational content and Universal Design for Learning. Moreover, there is a need for stronger collaboration between teaching staff and accessibility units/offices of the universities. Given the increasing reliance on digital learning environments, institutions must integrate accessibility into their e-learning strategies. Furthermore, there is a clear need to expand the range of learning materials used in higher education to meet the varying needs of students with disabilities.