Perspectives on embedding inclusive pedagogy within a BSc psychology curriculum

Abstract

Creating an inclusive experience for students in Higher Education is important for their engagement, belonging, and attainment. There are multiple ways of approaching inclusive teaching and there are specific considerations to be addressed when considering a Psychology curriculum. Although pedagogical resources discuss the benefits and abstract processes of creating inclusive curricula, there are little concrete examples of how to meaningfully engage in this process. We therefore present six case studies focusing on subject areas in psychology as well as specific approaches that have been adopted. In reflecting on our approaches, we offer the following suggestions to colleagues and give examples of concrete ways in which we have adopted them: (1) Consider and acknowledge your own positionality, and provide a framework for students to do the same; (2) Integrate lived experiences to content, particularly those with an applied focus; (3) Acknowledge that certain groups are underrepresented but strive to include research and theories from these groups where it is available; and, (4) Create diversity-centred learning objectives to structure an inclusive approach to content and assessment. We hope these reflections present a starting point for rich discussion about best practise in inclusive education as well as a resource for other educators.

Keywords:

• Inclusive education
• decolonisation
• equality, diversity, and inclusion
• higher education

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Marnie Best, University of South Australia, Australia

SUBJECTS:

• Teaching Psychology
• Inclusion and Special Educational Needs
• Pedagogy
• Decolonization

Introduction

Cultivating a student experience that is inclusive of all students is important for their engagement with the University, their sense of belonging, and improving their learning experiences and attainment (Arday et al., 2021). In the United Kingdom (UK), differences exist in relation to student outcomes such as grade attainment, degree completion, and graduate careers for certain groups of students, including those from ethnic minority backgrounds (e.g. Arday et al., 2022; Kauser et al., 2021), students with disabilities (e.g. Pearson et al., 2019), and students from less advantaged socio-demographic backgrounds (Jury et al., 2017; Lowery-Hart & Pacheo, 2011). These differences are only partly explained by variations in entry qualifications (Advance, 2021; Arday et al., 2022; Richardson, 2015), indicating a role for higher education institutions (HEI’s). To improve outcomes in these groups it is vital to understand the factors contributing to these differences and to develop and assess interventions targeting these factors.

Multiple factors contribute to differences in outcomes and may vary by both institution and subject area, indicating a role for institutional and subject specific differences in teaching, assessment, curricula, and student support services (Richardson, 2015). Furthermore, there is evidence that systemic issues such as inadequate support systems, issues in balancing work commitments, family pressures and a lack of social integration and belonging contribute to such students withdrawing from their degree programme and achieving lower grades than their peers (Advance, 2021; Arday et al., 2022; Jury et al., 2017; Kauser et al., 2021; Pearson et al., 2019; Richardson, 2015). Therefore, HEI’s aiming to improve disparate outcomes should focus on the whole institution, whilst also addressing the specific learning experiences within their subject areas. This can be achieved by prioritising inclusive teaching.

There are multiple ways of approaching inclusive teaching (or ‘inclusive pedagogy’) to ensure that all students feel included, supported, and as though they are a valuable part of the teaching and learning experience (Fuentes et al., 2021; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2020). One such method is through decolonising the curriculum; ensuring that the content taught is not skewed to Western and colonial frames of knowledge, traditions, history, or scholars (Arday et al., 2021; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2020), and promoting the voices and experiences of those who are traditionally less represented in Higher Education teaching. Representation of diverse groups within academia is also an important part of inclusive education. For example, there is a notable underrepresentation of disabled academic staff in Higher Education. Compared to national estimates that 21% of working-age adults are disabled (Department of Work and Pensions, 2021), only 5% of colleagues in Higher education report to have a disability, and even fewer report to have a physical (.43%) or sensory disability (.33%; HESA, 2022). Inclusive teaching should encompass the creation of teaching spaces that are accessible for all; an acknowledgement and awareness of our positionalities in relation to the content being taught; as well as how the content may be received by students (Salazar et al., 2010).

When considering a Psychology curriculum, there are some specific considerations that need to be addressed to promote inclusive teaching. First, we must be aware of the legacies (e.g. Eugenics) of prominent figures in our field (Cullen et al., 2020). Second, that students may have lived experience in relation to clinical conditions, mental and physical ill-health, and other life events that we need to be sensitive to (Woof et al., 2021). For example, despite growing number of students who identify as disabled (Bolton & Hubble, 2021) and/or seek mental health support whilst at university (Johnston, 2021), representation of disability within psychology education is limited and often stereotypical in textbooks (Goldstein et al., 2010), whilst awareness of and exposure to diversity issues related to physical disability is very low among students (Green et al., 2009). Finally, we must be aware of the biases in the sources of our knowledge, for example the well-known finding that research and conclusions in relation to psychology and behaviour is often based on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples (Henrich et al., 2010). Indeed, scholars promoting decolonised curricula for psychology highlight that further exploring and understanding the experiences of oppressed, marginalised, and underrepresented groups provide an excellent perspective on understanding the psychology of the human condition (Adams et al., 2017). However, we must ensure when doing so that this process is not inappropriately applying Western knowledge onto these groups or using Western theories and data as the norm, and instead ensure that we are adapting and contextualising this knowledge (Cullen et al., 2020).

Aims of the paper

As educators at a UK university who lead teaching on a British Psychological Society (BPS) accredited BSc Psychology course, we (the authors) are committed to creating inclusive curricula. When engaging with resources to revise our curricula to be inclusive, and in some cases decolonised, we reflected that there were resources available that discussed the benefits and abstract processes of creating inclusive curricula, but little concrete examples of how to engage in this process. Similar reflections have been noted by others (e.g. Fuentes et al., 2021).

Therefore, we aimed to provide a series of case studies that reflect our processes and the content of core psychology modules in order to provide concrete ideas and awareness for other educators. Each case study represents the experience and perspective of the relevant module lead(s) and as such vary slightly in style and content to ensure the voices of our diverse team are reflected. Case studies 1–4 focus on specific subject areas in psychology, some of which span multiple modules within the course, and therefore centre specific psychological content. Case studies 5 and 6 on the other hand focus on specific approaches for inclusive education and centre a particular approach that is used in modules covering different psychological content.

Methods

Design

The present paper adopts a case study approach. Given our goal was to describe examples of how we have approached inclusive pedagogy within the real-world context of our teaching practice, the case studies can be considered as descriptive (Priya, 2021; Yin, 2003). The purpose of presenting these descriptive case studies was to provide insight for other educators on our approaches, as well as to promote further discussion regarding inclusive pedagogy in practice.

Selection of case studies

Case studies were primarily sought that reflected the taught content required for accreditation by the BPS. Organizers of modules that covered this content were approached and asked to contribute to the case studies, as were other staff members who were a part of a special interest research group on psychology education. When all case studies of practice were received, they were organised in such a way to reflect subject areas in psychology (case studies 1–4) or specific approaches use in modules covering different content (case studies 5–6).

Setting of the case studies

The case studies presented in this paper reflect teaching on a BPS accredited BSc Psychology course at one large University in Central London. Within the University, the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee, Forum and Cap (Combined action plans) work to embed equality, diversity and inclusion within all aspects of university life. In addition, the faculty in which the BSc Psychology programme is taught has its own Culture, Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion team to ensure there is an equitable, diverse, and inclusive environment for all staff and students within the faculty.

Ethics

Given that the present paper represents a series of case studies of current practice, according to our university policies, this constitutes a service evaluation which does not require ethical approval. As per these policies, feedback (including quotes) from evaluation of modules that are routinely collected as part of the service can be used for later research as long as data remains anonymous, unidentifiable and the use of the data does not cause distress.

Case study 1: teaching individual differences and psychometrics

In a Year 1 (Level 4) module related to individual differences in psychology, a large part of the content covers intelligence, IQ testing, genetics and heritability (as is required for accreditation; British Psychology Society [BPS], 2019). In ensuring this teaching is inclusive, we strive to create a teaching space for this module that is accessible. First, we give students an explicit content note that we discuss how research related to heritability and intelligence has been used to promote eugenics, as well as racist and discriminatory agendas (see Berryessa & Cho, 2013). Furthermore, we make clear that this may be received by students in different ways due to the impact of these issues on current society and potentially their own lived experiences (Salazar et al., 2010). To further promote this inclusive space, as the lead lecturer for this content I (SH) explicitly state how my own identity and positionality (as a British-born South Asian male) influences how I deliver this content and encourage students to consider the impact of my own biases on this teaching (Salazar et al., 2010). In doing so, I aim to encourage students to consider how our positions as lecturers are not free from bias, whilst also encouraging students to reflect on their own positionalities. This helps to frame subsequent teaching on the topics of intelligence and IQ testing, and genetics and heritability.

Our coverage of intelligence includes theories and research that has predominantly occurred in Western cultures. However, we also specifically discuss how intelligence is conceptualised in individuals from China (Chen & Chen, 1988); Korea (Lim et al., 2002); and India (Baral & Das, 2004), as well as how it varies from communities from the same country with different cultural heritages (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993). In addition to discussing how definitions and conceptualisations of intelligence differ between cultures, we discuss the implications this has on the measurement of intelligence. Specifically, we discuss how the content of, and norms associated with IQ tests may not be appropriate to use in cultures with different definitions of intelligence (Dramé & Ferguson, 2019; Shuttleworth-Edwards, 2016). Underlying these discussions is the perspective that differences are not deficits, and that one culture is not a ‘gold standard’ by which all others should be compared.

When covering genetics and heritability, we explicitly teach and discuss the historical context to the study of heritability in terms of it being used to promote eugenics, as well as how it influences current social issues regarding racism and other forms of discrimination (see Berryessa & Cho, 2013). However, upon reflection we came to the realisation that even this content centred the issues in relation to the US, UK, and Europe. Therefore, content was included that spoke to how discrimination based on genes and birth can be seen in India in relation to the ‘caste’ system, and how programmes designed to promote inclusion of individuals from these ‘castes’ or groups have had positive outcomes (Bhavnani & Lee, 2021).

These discussions continue in a Year 2 (Level 5) research methods and statistics module where we highlight the shared history of Psychometrics with Eugenics and spotlight the prominent, leading roles that statisticians such as Karl Pearson and Francis Galton had within the Eugenics movement. Focusing on these two statisticians is particularly relevant as Pearson is an alumnus of our institute, and at level 5 students have extensive experience of using statistical techniques that both statisticians/eugenicists are credited with developing (e.g. correlation/regression towards the mean) without having previously being made aware of the subsequent way that these statisticians and others, used and abused the techniques in the Eugenics movement. Students are also provided with readings to further understand how statistics are misused (such as, Angela Saini’s book Superior). Staff also highlight profiles of current researchers using Psychometrics in an open and inclusive rather than divisive way (such as, Denny Borsboom and Jessika Kay Flake).

The approaches described in this case study reflect changes and revisions to the curriculum that have occurred over successive iterations of the module. Whilst our curriculum, the lectures and associated reading, did originally include conceptualisations of intelligence from non-western cultures and some of the historical context to the study of heritability, this was often covered superficially and did not include more in-depth discussions and content such as those covered above. The inclusion of these discussions was highlighted in module evaluations as being valuable: ‘[lectures included] insightful commentaries and critiques acknowledging a wider cultures perspective of theories addressed’, with additional feedback expressing ‘gratitude for including those discussions on the problems regarding ethnicity and class within IQ tests as well as the…mention of India and caste systems you included [and] your inclusion of sources/studies from more diverse cultures’.

Case study 2: teaching developmental psychology

In Year 1 (Level 4) and Year 2 (Level 5) modules teaching topics in developmental psychology, an inclusive approach underlies the teaching delivered and content included. In our Year 1 (Level 4) module, the first topic engages students to think critically in regard to ‘milestones’ and ‘typicality’ in development, as well as who is represented in developmental research and why (e.g. Draper et al., 2022). These themes and questions are embedded throughout the module and applied to the specific topics, for example: whether diverse family structures are represented in research and theory (e.g. Reczek, 2020); whether theories of language development should be considered as universal and applicable to other cultures with consideration as to how this can be explored in research (e.g. Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow, 2012); whether theories and research of friendships and romantic relationships are inclusive of diverse experiences; and initiatives within science and society more broadly that focus on acknowledging and embracing Neurodiversity (Hoekstra et al., 2018). Students have commented on their appreciation of the ‘extra context to the topics in regards to critical evaluation and especially culture’.

In our Year 2 (Level 5) module we continue building upon these themes. For example, in discussing a decolonised study of joint attention, we cover its historical definition and measurement and the ways in which it is skewed towards one culture, the impact that this has had in cross-cultural research, and the practical steps some authors have taken to study this concept in a decolonised way through exploring how and with whom children from different cultures engage in joint attention (Bard et al., 2021). We also explore the motivations and experiences of key authors in developmental psychology, for example the discrimination that prominent academic women experienced during their careers (Johnston & Johnson, 2008). In humanising both the topics being taught as well as the people behind prominent research and theories, students are encouraged to consider how the concepts of development, many of which all students can relate to, reflect their own experiences.

Case study 3: teaching clinical psychology

Clinical psychology is a Year 2 (Level 5) module covering psychological conditions and general themes in clinical practice (classification/formulation and interventions). The aims of this module are to appreciate the role of psychology in understanding and alleviating mental health difficulties and promoting wellbeing, as well as to develop critical appreciation of the methodological issues in studying mental ill-health and wellbeing. Successful completion of these aims requires that students appreciate the complex diversity and inclusion issues related to clinical psychology practice and research.

In recognition of the need to embed diversity and inclusion issues in module teaching (Fuentes et al., 2021), we adopted a new diversity-centred learning objective. Students are now expected to be able to ‘Demonstrate a basic understanding of issues surrounding diversity and inclusion in Clinical Psychology research and practice’. The addition of this learning outcome allowed us to; (1) require topic authors to incorporate information on D&I issues in their topic teaching, and (2) assess students understanding of this material.

We asked topic authors (faculty members with expertise in the area) to include content to address the new learning outcome and where possible, incorporate it into the topic specific learning objectives. Topic authors covered a range of issues, including mis- and under-diagnosis of minority groups, cultural influences on the identification of symptoms, the need for culturally sensitive interventions, cultural competencies, and biases in research stemming from non-generalisable study populations. Quality assurance was conducted through a peer-review process in which the module leaders (JF and FC) reviewed the lecture slides and transcripts and ensured that all topics addressed the new learning outcome. Furthermore, this oversight also allowed deeper integration of the topic material with Team Based Learning (TBL) workshops.

The TBL workshops explore three key areas of clinical psychology: assessment, formulation, and intervention through the use of detailed case studies and case vignettes. The main part of a TBL workshop is the application exercises, wherein small groups of students work on a set of clinical and/or research problems with a defined list of possible answers (see Michaelsen & Sweet, 2004 for further information on TBL). Groups simultaneously report their answers, and the workshop leader moderates a whole-class discussion. Therefore, we incorporated D&I material directly into the application exercises with follow-up D&I related questions in the whole-class discussion.

First, we redesigned some of the application exercises so that D&I related material was directly required to answer the question. For example, we included a vignette wherein a patient presented with symptoms that could be ascribed to either psychosis or the beliefs of a particular religious denomination. Groups were required to study the vignette and decide which diagnosis (from a choice of four—including ‘no diagnosis’) they suspected. Second, we provided follow-up questions to existing application exercises to supplement them with D&I content. For example, in application exercises focused on clinical formulation, we changed the service-user’s characteristics (e.g. disability) and ask students how their formulation would change (if at all). This dual approach allowed us to reinforce the point that an awareness of D&I issues should be ever present during clinical and research decision making.

These workshops provide a low-stakes environment to reflect on the D&I issues explicitly covered in the course, but also develop the necessary skills to reflect on these issues in the field more broadly. The materials provided across the module equip students to complete a related written summative assessment comprised of two parts. The first part focuses on the assessment and treatment of a chosen psychological condition, with the second part requiring students to describe and reflect on D&I issues in Clinical Psychology research and practice.

After evaluating students attempts at this essay, we noted that students found the second part of the essay challenging. Students could describe the issues successfully but struggled with reflecting on the material. This has led us to further develop the supporting resources for this assessment. First, we plan to provide greater definition of ‘reflection’ in the workshops and provide students with examples of reflective accounts relevant to clinical practice. Second, we plan to change the wording of the essay question to ‘Describe and reflect on the Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) issues in research and practice that you might encounter working as a Clinical Psychologist’ thus encouraging students to reflect on their role as active agents rather than passive observers of the issues. Finally, we intend to provide additional formative opportunities for reflection throughout the module by providing anonymous opportunities to provide answers to questions through the Padlet platform at the end of each topic. Example Padlet questions include; ‘Reflect on the D&I issues you encountered in this lecture. What were the key issues? Why might these occur? What is the state of the evidence?’. We have chosen to use Padlet as it is beneficial for a diverse range of learners, for example, even if students do not choose to post, they can learn from the model answers of their peers (Deni & Zainal, 2018).

Case study 4: teaching sport and exercise psychology

The world of sport is one where a lack of diversity and explicit discrimination is on full view to the public. Examples of this include the experiences of England’s black players after the Men’s European Football Championship final defeat in 2021, the ongoing investigation of racism in cricket, and spotlight on LGBTQ rights at the 2022 Men’s Football World Cup in Qatar. However, sport and exercise psychology curriculum rarely include education on these issues or how to support those experience very public discrimination. There is a need to create inclusive and decolonised education in this area to both understand these issues and to develop practitioners who can support these athletes in the future.

We (OR and SH) have previously outlined our reflections on developing this curriculum (Runswick et al., 2022). Here we focused on integrating perspectives from students, athletes, and staff with lived experience with the literature base on decolonisation to offer guidance and practical steps to help others. This included reflecting on the positionality of the module lead (white, British, with interest in typically middle-class sports of cricket and golf), the inherent colonial nature of sport, the western focus of our evidence base, and understanding how this is perceived by the student body.

The modules took simple measures, such as diversifying examples of athletes and sports to reflect the student body rather than the interests and position of the module lead, through to more comprehensive changes such as including specific topics on supporting athletes facing different forms of discrimination and specific issues faced by certain populations, such as classification in para-sports, and hearing lived experience of students in the class. This culminated in assessments where students could apply theoretical understanding of supporting high performance to any topic of their own interests and allow them to relate content to their own lives and interests.

Case study 5: inclusive own voice teaching in Higher Education

The broad conceptualisation of disability in the United Kingdom, incorporating specific learning disabilities, mental health conditions, and long-standing illness and health issues alongside physical and sensory impairments, means that a substantial amount of teaching within psychology is centred around disability and difference more generally. As such, we need to strive towards an educational and research tradition which amplifies the voices of individuals with direct lived experience of the content, and it is important to recognise that such own-voices approaches are required across the sector and should encompass as many different identities as possible (e.g. Arnold & Sableski, 2020; Bittner, 2020; Hoekstra et al., 2018). The difficulties the sector faces in doing so are, to a large degree, related to a culture shift in how we think about resource allocation (Housee, 2022) which we attempted to promote in two modules.

In a Year 1 (Level 4) biological psychology module that introduces students to the structure and function of the nervous system, specific cognitive functions, and relevant psychopathology, students attend three live lectures which are designed to consolidate their learning and to engage them in critical thinking around issues of integrity, diversity/representation, and challenging the notion of a/typicality. In the third live lecture, we share our lived experiences relevant to the module topic. For example, I (JO) talk in detail about the traumatic birth story of my mother and myself which resulted in severe birth asphyxia and consequent dyskinetic cerebral palsy. Previous research has found that teaching from a lived experience perspective can improve students’ attitudes towards mental illness, their own self-awareness, and their levels of empathy (Byrne et al., 2013). Correspondingly, our aims for this lecture reflect this: (1) to illustrate the diversity of origin and symptomatology associated with atypical brain functioning, (2) to destigmatise conversations around atypical brain functioning, and (3) to encourage students to reflect on the real-world implications of what they are studying.

A Year 3 (Level 6) psycholinguistics module (led by JO and DKH) takes a slightly different approach to sharing lived experiences with the students by ensuring own voices representation in core content delivery. For example, the topic of linguistic relativity is taught by a colleague who is an expert in cultural competency and has lived experience of growing up in a multicultural environment. Additionally, we asked a colleague who is an expert in sign language and a native sign language user themselves to deliver a signed lecture. The intention here was to give students an insight into the challenges associated with operating in a world that is designed for a specific group of individuals and to reflect upon the impact this has on them. Correspondingly, one student fed back that ‘This was an insightful activity as I think many if not all the students in the module are used to watching the lectures in a language they understand’. Students also expressed understandable frustration with not being able to follow along. This was countered by assigning core reading for the topic which students would be assessed on, which the students found supportive in their learning: ‘After reading the book chapter and revisiting the video it was interesting seeing how [] employs a range of facial expressions and slight changes in body posture throughout the lecture’. Providing closed captioning is essential for student experience and attainment (Dommett et al., 2022; Morris et al., 2016) and was requested by students: ‘I agree with the others who said subtitles would be helpful. I don’t know any sign language myself so I also found it difficult to follow along’, however, we felt that in this particular instance they did not align with the purpose of the activity and also were difficult to realise due to time constraints. We have since changed the placement of the activity to be a seminar rather than a lecture in response to student feedback.

In my (JO) experience, integrating own voice representation in teaching is both valuable but also challenging and costly as it requires creative solutions to complex problems to meet the needs of the learning community. It is essential to address the lack of representation to provide a comprehensive education to students but also to support those whose voices have traditionally been excluded from these spaces. With regard to disability, the issues surrounding inclusive own voice teaching are captured well in an essay by Anderson (2006): ‘Disabled bodies disrupt educational environments. This disruption is perceived as a threat, and finances are often cited. More disruption is needed (this said with the most optimistic and hopeful of intentions). More stories must be told by people with disabilities inside pedagogical spaces. Teachers with disabilities offer ‘bodies of possibility’ that interrogate and transform the spaces of academe’ (p. 378).

Case study 6: embedding study skills and mental wellbeing into the curriculum

Our Graduate Attributes programme comprises three optional non-credit bearing modules, each associated with a different year of study spanning two semesters. Students choose to attend up to 20 synchronous (workshops) and asynchronous (LinkedIn Learning) activities across the year, with the attendance of four sessions required to pass the module. These modules were initially designed to help close attainment gaps associated with a diverse cohort of students and hence varied levels of study skills prior to starting university (Morgan, 2020), and therefore creates an inclusive experience in reducing barriers to learning based on prior learning experiences (Saunders & Kardia, 2004).

In addition to providing study skills to help address the attainment gap, the module is also an opportunity to support student wellbeing. Graduate Attributes provides students with content that indirectly influences wellbeing, for example to alleviate stress and anxiety (Putwain et al., 2013), through topics such as core study skills, digital skills, communication skills, and career planning. In addition, some sessions directly address student wellbeing such as building happiness, managing stress, mindfulness, and sleep better.

The Higher Education Academy supports the use of curriculum content and processes (learning, teaching, and assessment) to support student wellbeing (Houghton & Anderson, 2017). Pedagogic approaches that are inclusive and aim to promote student wellbeing include flexibility of sessions, creating sense of psychological safety, and promoting a sense of belonging. Sessions are flexible as they are optional and include a choice between asynchronous online activity (watched when desired) or timetabled synchronous workshops. Offering several modalities increases inclusivity (Salazar et al., 2010). Small group workshops aim to promote psychological safety within the classroom. Here, students feel able to ask questions, be involved in discussions, and ask for help (Hughes et al., 2022). Without a sense of psychological safety, students are more likely to experience anxiety, embarrassment or humiliation (Marin et al., 2011; Turner & Harder, 2018). A sense of belonging is promoted via asynchronous discussion forums, and small group work in synchronous workshops. Also, workshops are taught by members of staff that do not necessarily teach core modules, therefore, giving students an opportunity to engage with the wider teacher team.

The success of this module has been evidenced in its inclusion as an example of ‘good practice’ in the Office for Students funded project ‘Education for Mental Health’ whereby a toolkit was developed to outline approaches to support student wellbeing and learning within the curriculum at university (Hughes et al., 2022).

Discussion

Through reflecting on experiences of embedding inclusive pedagogy within the curriculum of one psychology course in the UK, we have evidenced several ways in which different areas of psychology teaching can be more inclusive. This has included promoting the voices and perspectives of under-represented groups and those with lived experiences (Arday et al., 2021; Arnold & Sableski, 2020; Fuentes et al., 2021; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2020); creating inclusive and accessible teaching spaces that reflect the lived experiences of learners in the room (Salazar et al., 2010; Woof et al., 2021); developing diversity-centred learning objectives that can therefore be assessed (Fuentes et al., 2021); and by embedding diversity and inclusion in the curriculum itself (Arday et al., 2021; Fuentes et al., 2021; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2020).

However, we have collectively experienced several barriers, often institutional ones, in engaging with the process of diversifying our teaching aside from the limited examples of inclusive curriculum. Firstly, revisions of curriculum content and teaching strategies have implications for staff workload, which is often considered as a ‘silent’ barrier (Gregory & Lodge, 2015) as workload calculations often minimise or do not include the resource needed for such activities (Ujir et al., 2020). Secondly, the personal impact that such work has on academics is an additional barrier, particularly for those with lived experiences of content being taught and/or those belonging to a minoritized group for whom work on equality and diversity often falls upon (Verma, 2022). Furthermore, future work in inclusive pedagogy in psychology should continue to focus on developing, evaluating, refining and sharing best practice. In our own teaching, although we have received positive feedback from students on our inclusive approaches from free-text responses in module evaluation surveys and spontaneous comments through the course of modules, institutional policies prevent us from incorporating specific questions regarding the content related to equality, diversity, and inclusion in module evaluation surveys. Therefore, we are unable to assess whether our changes in approach improve the students’ experience as well as whether this has an impact on educational outcomes. However, the purpose of such evaluations should not be to determine when the inclusive approach is considered ‘done’, as diversifying curriculum and teaching practice is an on-going process involving continuous reflection, critique, and learning (Fuentes et al., 2021). Finally, the wider societal and political discourse surrounding inclusive pedagogy, and particularly efforts to decolonise the curriculum, can at times act as a barrier to implementing meaningful change. Whilst current UK regulation requires public sector websites and intranets (i.e. content hosted on university virtual learning environments) to meet accessibility requirements (The Public Sector Bodies [Websites and Mobile Applications] [No. 2] Accessibility Regulations, 2018) and an Act has been passed to protect academic freedom with regard to freedom of speech (Murray, 2023), this is also against a backdrop of efforts to decolonising curriculum being (inaccurately) presented as exclusionary to some demographics, and discussed in such a way to deliberately stoke political polarization on the issue (Akhter & Watson, 2022).

In acknowledging that inclusive education is an ongoing process where continuous change, evaluation and reflection is necessary, we should recognise where we can do better. Although we strive to ensure that all students feel included in our course and institution, internal evaluations have revealed that students with long term health conditions, those from less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, and first-generation students experience barriers to learning and reduced belonging, which is in line with research findings from the sector at large (Jury et al., 2017; Pearson et al., 2019). Therefore, there is continued work to be done in ensuring our teaching practices is accessible and inclusive to students from these backgrounds using similar approaches to those described in our case studies. Importantly, such work needs to sit within the context of much wider efforts to make education accessible and inclusive, for example through the development of supportive policies, high quality training provision, and community involvement (Loreman, 2007).

In sharing these case studies of our own practice, we contribute concrete examples of attempts to promote inclusive and decolonised material within psychology teaching in Higher Education. Based on our own reflections and the literature cited throughout, we offer colleagues the following suggestions: First, consider and acknowledge your positionality in relation to the content being taught, and encourage students to do the same. Secondly, integrate lived experiences and own voices teaching and material to content, particularly those with an applied focus. Third, as well as acknowledging issues in relation to certain groups being underrepresented, include research and theories from these groups where it is available (the examples used in our case studies might be a helpful starting point). Finally, embed an inclusive approach in the curriculum and create diversity-centred learning objectives to structure content as well as assessment of psychological material. These suggestions are not exhaustive, but are ones that we have applied to teaching psychology in a concrete manner. It is our hope that this paper represents a starting point of rich discussion about best practise in this regard and we invite colleagues to produce similar case studies in the future.

In conclusion, we do not consider our case studies of approaches to promote inclusive pedagogy within our teaching practice in psychology as a ‘gold-standard’ that others should follow. Instead, we hope to provide concrete contextual examples for other colleagues to consider and build upon for their own curriculum. There are many ways in which inclusive pedagogies can be incorporated in the teaching of psychology, and our aim is to ensure that this is an ongoing process within our individual teaching as well as being a broader conversation across institutions.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our colleagues at King’s College London for their support and their own initiatives for promoting an inclusive education and community. We would also like to thank our student body for holding us to high standards and providing meaningful feedback on their experiences.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Salim Hashmi

Salim Hashmi is a Lecturer who teaches primarily on the BSc Psychology programme at King’s College London. Salim completed both a BSc in Psychology (Hons) and PhD at Cardiff University and joined King’s College London in 2019. Salim’s research interests include children’s social and cognitive development, particularly play and imagination, as well as University student’s inclusion and wellbeing.

Francesca A. Cotier

Francesca Cotier is a Lecturer on the BSc Psychology programme at King’s College London. She completed her PhD at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) in 2016. Her thesis considered the relationship between social defeat and psychosis proneness in a Chinese population. She then continued to work at HKU as a post- doctoral fellow in the laboratory of Neuropsychology and Human neuroscience for a period of almost 2 years. Francesca’s primary research interests lie in identifying the social and cultural determinants involved in the development and maintenance of Psychosis.

Fiona Essig

Fiona Essig is a lecturer on the BSc Psychology Programme at King’s College London, joining the University in 2020. She completed a BSc in Cognitive Science (Hons) at University of Westminster, a Master’s in Research Methods and a PhD at University of Hertfordshire. Fiona’s background is in cognitive psychology, focusing on task switching and multitasking, particularly using language tasks.

Daniel Kennedy-Higgins

Dan Kennedy-Higgins is a Lecturer who teaches on the BSc Psychology programme at King’s College London. Dan completed a BSc in Psychology (Hons) at Royal Holloway, University of London, an MSc in Language, Communication and Neuroscience and a PhD in Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences at University College London and joined King’s College London in 2019. Dan’s research interests include trying to understand the cognitive and neural mechanisms underpinning adaptation to distorted speech, as well as investigating experiences of students who take a period of leave during their academic studies.

Julia Ouzia

Julia Ouzia is a Senior Lecturer on the BSc Psychology programme at King’s College London and a researcher in the fields of multilingual cognition and relational psychotherapy. She completed her education at Anglia Ruskin University and has taught at a variety of institutions over the past decade. Julia’s pedagogical interest lie in the implementation of the Universal Design for Learning framework and practice-based learning in Higher Education.

Oliver R. Runswick

Oliver Runswick is a Lecturer who teaches primarily on the BSc Psychology and BSc Sport and Exercise Medical Sciences programmes at King’s College London. Oliver completed a BSc in Sports Sciences at Swansea University, MSc in Human Movement Science at VU Amsterdam, MSc in Psychology at University of Derby, and PhD at St Mary’s University. Oliver was a Senior Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychology and Programme Coordinator at University of Chichester prior to joining King’s College London in 2020. Oliver’s research interests include expert performance and skill acquisition as well optimal design of learning environments in sports, education, and occupational domains.

Rebecca Upsher

Rebecca Upsher has an interest in teaching and student wellbeing, and a background in Health Psychology. She became a research associate at King’s College London in January 2020 working on the Office for Students funded project ‘Education for Mental Health’. The project developed an online toolkit for academics to support student wellbeing within the curriculum. Rebecca has led multiple qualitative and quantitative evaluations of teaching interventions across several universities which aim to support student wellbeing. She runs a special interest group of ∼130 members bringing together academics worldwide (Europe, Australia, US), holding weekly presentations from experts on supporting student wellbeing within the curriculum. Rebecca is currently a Lecturer at King’s College London.

James L. Findon

James Findon is a Senior Lecturer who teaches on the BSc Psychology programme at King’s College London. James holds a PhD in Neuroscience and Psychology from King’s College London. He is chair of the Psychology Education Research Group which coordinates and promotes pedagogic and scholarly research in the department. He also leads a lab which studies the interplay between brain and body with a particular focus on mind-body interactions in the context of neurodevelopmental conditions and the role of physical exercise in mental health.