Student agency as a factor in the implementation of universal design principles in learning

About the authors:

Maxim Yu. Semenov, Cand. Sci. (Soc.), Associate Professor, Department of General and Economic Sociology, University of Tyumen, Tyumen, Russia; m.y.semenov@utmn.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7130-340X

Ludmila V. Fedina, Cand. Sci. (Ped.), Associate Professor, Department of Pedagogy, School of Education, Head of Master’s Programs, University of Tyumen, Tyumen, Russia; l.v.fedina@utmn.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2822-0692

Zhanna Yu. Bruk, Cand. Sci. (Ped.), Associate Professor, Department of Pedagogy, School of Education, University of Tyumen, Tyumen, Russia; z.y.bruk@utmn.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2806-2513

Abstract:

Modern researches of inclusive higher education are actively searching for tools to address the issues of convergence of inclusive and academic excellence. Student agency sets a new framework for discourse. The methodology of universal design for learning shifts the emphasis from personal limitations to the disadvantages of the educational environment, provides everyone with the opportunity to independently manage their own learning.

The purpose of this article was to study and describe the characteristics of student agency as a factor of implementing the principles of universal design in higher inclusive education. The research was conducted using the following methods: the author’s questionnaire for evaluating the principles of universal design of learning, assessing the general proactivity of students and personal initiative. 3,158 students took part in the survey, including 87 students with disabilities and 243 international students from Tyumen state university. Based on the results of factor and cluster analysis, three groups of students with different agent characteristics were identified: activists (independent, active, proactive), conservatives (focused on university activity), observers (poorly motivated, passive). Students with a disability status and international students have lower results in general proactivity and personal initiative, which emphasizes the need to develop socio-pedagogical and managerial solutions for such students.

References:

Boronina, L. N. et al. (2024). Manifestation of student agency in project-based learning: a case study of a Federal University. Scientific Result. Sociology and Management, 10(3), 200–216. [In Russian]

Volosnikova, L. M., & Fedinа, L. V. (2023). Inclusive perfection: a new model of a university in the 21st century based on universal learning design. Psychological Science and Education, 28(6), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280602 [In Russian]

Leontiev, D.A., Alexandrova, L.A., & Lebedeva, A.A. (2020). Personality development and psychological support for students with disabilities in inclusive vocational education. LitRes: Smysl. [In Russian]

Olkhovaya, T. A. (2024). Student subjectivity as a guideline of modern university education. The world of science. Pedagogy and psychology, 12(6). Retrieved February 02, 2026 from https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/108PDMN624.pdf [In Russian]

Safonova, A. N., & Safonov, A. N. (2020). Personalization of education in Russia. Pedagogy, 84(11), 5. [In Russian]

Sorokin, P. S., Afanasyeva, I. A., Vyatskaya, Yu. A., & Kovaleva, A. (2025). Agency of university students and graduates in the field of labor and employment: connection with educational experience and well-being. Higher education in Russia, 34(7), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2025-34-7-133-152 [In Russian]

Fedina, L. V., Bruk, Zh. Yu., & Volosnikova, L. M. (2024). The relationship of child agency and subjective well-being. Voprosy Obrazovaniya, 1, 265–287. https://doi.org/10.17323/vo-2024-19789 [In Russian]

Fedina, L. V., Kukhterina, G. V., Saitgalieva, G. G., Semenovskikh, Т. V., & Soloveva, E. A. (2023). Psychological well-being of students in a diverse university environment. Psychological Science and Education, 28(6), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280607 [In Russian]

Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: the role of job crafting and work engagement. Human relations, 65(10), 1359–1378. 

Bracken, S. et al. (2025). Empowering disabled learners’ voices and agency through universal design for learning. Learner voices, perspectives, and positionings. Routledge, 130–144.

Brower A. M., & Specht-Boardman R. (2022). New models of higher education: unbundled, rebundled, customized, and DIY. IGI Global, 577.

Frese, M. et al. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity of two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139–161.

Inouye, K., Lee, S. & Oldac, Y. I. (2023). A systematic review of student agency in international higher education. High Educ, 86, 891–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00952-3

Klemenčič, M. (2015a). ‘What is student agency? An ontological exploration in the context of research on student engagement’. In M. Klemenčič, S. Bergan, & R. Primožič (eds.) Student engagement in Europe: Society, Higher Education and Student Governance. Council of Europe Higher Education Series No. 20, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 11–29.

Klemenčič, M. (2015б). ‘Student Involvement in Quality Enhancement’, in J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. Dill and M. Souto-Otero (eds.) The Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 526–543.

Marom L., & Hardwick J. (2025). From access to inclusion: A call for a cultural shift in higher education. Higher Education, 89(2), 513–534.

Miller, E. R., & Gkonou, C. (2018). Language teacher agency, emotion labor and emotional rewards in tertiary-level English language programs. System, 79, 49–59. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.system.2018.03.002

Naylor R. et al. (2021). Students as customers versus as active agents: conceptualising the student role in governance and quality assurance. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(5), 1026–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1792850

O’Brien E., & Reale J. (2021). Supporting learner agency using the pedagogy of choice. In L. Blaschke, S. Hase (eds). Unleashing the power of learner agency, 73–82.

Sloan, J. D. (2024). Centering difference: Student agency and the limits of “comfortable” collaboration. Landmark Essays in Contemporary Writing Center Studies. Routledge, 61–69.

van Andel, J., Botas, P.C.P., & Huisman, J. (2012). Consumption values and empowerment of the student as customer: taking a rational look inside higher education’s “Pandora’s Box”. Higher Education Review, 45(1), 62–85.