Designing Inclusive Pedagogy for AI Learning: A Framework Based on Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Ethical Guidelines, and Learning Praxes
Keywords:
Universal Design for Learning, AI Ethics, Inclusive Pedagogy, Learning Praxis, Educational Technology, Digital Equity.Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) permeates educational systems, instructors must reconcile the promise of personalization and access with risks of bias, exclusion, and unequal capacity to benefit. This article advances an Inclusive Pedagogy Framework for AI Teaching and Learning (IPFAITL) that integrates Universal Design for Learning (UDL), ethical AI principles, and critical learning praxis into a coherent, implementable model. Drawing from extensive research on inclusive pedagogy (Ybyrayeva, & Yermakhanova, 2022), AI ethics in education, and critical learning theory, this framework addresses the multifaceted challenges of teaching and learning with AI while promoting accessibility, equity, and social justice (Capraro, et al., 2023). The proposed framework provides practical guidance for educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers seeking to implement AI-enhanced education that serves all learners, particularly those from marginalized and historically underrepresented communities.
References
1. Barteaux, S. (2014). Universal Design for Learning. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, Volume 6, Issue 2. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1230738.pdf
2. Bircan, T., & Ãzbilgin, M. F. (2025). Unmasking inequalities of the code: Disentangling the nexus of AI and inequality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 211, 123925. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162524007236#preview-section-cited-by
3. Boothe, K. A., Lohmann, M. J., Donnell, K. A., & Dean Hall, D. (2018). Applying the Principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in the College Classroom. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7(3). Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/josea/vol7/iss3/2/
4. Borenstein, J., & Howard, A. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics, 1(1), 61-65. Retrieved from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7487209/
5. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (PMLR, Vol. 81), 77–91. Retrieved from: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html Proceedings of Machine Learning Research
6. Boutelier, S. and Ludwig, N. (2021). Leveraging Technology to Support Students’ Needs. Edutopia. Retrieved from: https://www.edutopia.org/article/leveraging-technology-support-students-needs
7. Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoglu, D., Akgun, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Bonnefon, J.-F., Brañas-Garza, P., Butera, L., Douglas, K. M., Everett, J. A. C., Gigerenzer, G., Greenhow, C., Hashimoto, D. A., Holt-Lunstad, J., Jetten, J., Johnson, S., Longoni, C., Lunn, P., M. Van Lange, P. A., Wall, F., Van Bavel, J. J., Viale, R. (2023). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05377. Retrieved from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11165650/
8. CAST (2024). The UDL Guidelines. Retrieved from: https://udlguidelines.cast.org
9. CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. Center for Applied Special Technology. Retrieved from: https://udlguidelines.cast.org (archives)
10. Courey, S., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2013). Improved lesson planning with Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412446178. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258193233_Improved_Lesson_Planning_With_Universal_Design_for_Learning_UDL
11. Dalton, E. M., McKenzie, J. A., & Kahonde, C. (2012). The implementation of inclusive education in South Africa: Reflections arising from a workshop for teachers and therapists to introduce universal design for learning. African Journal of Disability, 1(1), 1-7. Retrieved from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6676777/
12. Frąckiewicz, M. (2023). OpenAI and the Risks of AI Bias: Addressing Stereotypes and Discrimination. TS2 SPACE. Retrieved from: https://ts2.space/en/openai-and-the-risks-of-ai-bias-addressing-stereotypes-and-discrimination
13. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1), 1-20. Retrieved from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10954516
14. Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé III, H., & Craw ford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86–92. Retrieved from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3458723 ACM Digital Library
15. Goodley, D. (2001). 'Learning difficulties', the social model of disability and impairment: Challenging epistemologies. Disability & Society, 16(2), 207-231. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687590120035816
16. Goodley, D. (2007). For Inclusion: Towards a critical pedagogy with marginalised learners. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), 317-334. Retrieved from: https://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/library/goodley-inclusive-pedagogy.pdf
17. Gouthro, P. A., & Holloway, S. M. (2023). Critical social theory, inclusion, and a pedagogy of hope in lifelong learning. RELA: European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 14(3), 321-335. Retrieved from: https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2023/28011/pdf/RELA_2023_3_Gouthro_Holloway_Critical_social_theory.pdf
18. Gouseti, A., James, F., Fallin, L., & Burden, K. (2024). The ethics of using AI in K-12 education: a systematic literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 34(2), 161–182. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1475939X.2024.2428601
19. Greene, M., Josyula, M., Si, W. and Hart, J. (2025). Digital divides in scene recognition: Uncovering socioeconomic biases in deep learning systems. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 414. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.13097v2#:~:text=We%20found%20significant%20explicit%20socioeconomic%20biases%20across%20all,in%20images%20from%20homes%20with%20lower%20socioeconomic%20status
20. Hallström, J. (2022). Embodying the past, designing the future: technological determinism reconsidered in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education (2022) 32:17–31 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09600-2. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10798-020-09600-2.pdf
21. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220–229. Retrieved from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3287560.3287596 ACM Digital Library
22. Stone, A. (2025). AI Ethics in Higher Education: How Schools Are Proceeding. EDTech, Focus on Higher Education. Retrieved from: https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2025/06/ai-ethics-higher-education-how-schools-are-proceeding-perfcon
23. UNESCO (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Retrieved from: https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics
24. US Department of Education (2023). Office of Educational Technology, Artificial Intelligence and Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations, Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/ai-report/ai-report.pdf
25. West, S. M., Whittaker, M., & Crawford, K. (2019). Discriminating systems: Gender, race, and power in AI. AI Now Institute. Retrieved from: https://ainowinstitute.org/publica-tions/discriminating-systems-gender-race-and-power-in-ai-2
26. Wiese, L.J.; Patil, I.; Schiff, D.S.; Magana, A.J. (2025). AI Ethics Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2025, 8, 100405. Retrieved from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/16/7405
27. World Economic Forum. (2021). Global gender gap report 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2021
28. Ybyrayeva, K., & Yermakhanova, G. (2022). Critical Pedagogy and Inclusive Education. Scientific Collection «InterConf», (107), 101–103. Retrieved from https://archive.interconf.cen-ter/index.php/conference-proceeding/article/view/229
