Education and sustainable development: pedagogical practices for the inclusion of undergraduate students with autism spectrum disorder in higher education institutions

Purpose This study aims to examine the pedagogical practices of reasonable adaptations (RA) and universal design for learning (UDL) applied in undergraduate courses that include students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in higher education institutions (HEIs), focusing on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 (Quality Education) and inclusive learning outcomes. Design/methodology/approach Following the definition of the research objective, two searches were conducted to identify relevant studies. The literature review was based on these papers and additional documents related to the topics. A questionnaire, provided as Supplementary Material, was developed from the literature review for the survey and underwent three stages of evaluation: a pilot case study; review by the authors; and a review by a pedagogue. After that, the questionnaire, provided as Supplementary Material, was distributed through several academic and professional networks worldwide, reaching an estimated population of approximately 700 members. Survey data were analyzed using absolute and relative frequencies. To add more empirical results, a set of secondary multiple case studies was searched in the most relevant articles, and content analysis was applied for the data analysis. Findings The survey and case studies findings demonstrate alignment with several UDL and RA principles regarding multimodal content, clear instructions, communication, collaboration and feedback. In contrast, flexible assessment methods, assistive technologies, individualized plans, learning contracts, mentoring and institutional support services appeared less frequently. Although core UDL and RA principles are being implemented, gaps remain in individualized and flexible strategies. These findings highlight opportunities to improve accessibility, faculty training, student engagement, the use of accessible technologies and academic outcomes for students with ASD. Research limitations/implications Limitations include the small sample size and the focus on professors with previous experience teaching ASD students, which may limit the generalization of the findings. In addition, the study primarily explored the professors’ perspectives, with less emphasis on direct student feedback or longitudinal outcomes. Another limitation is that the study captures reported practices rather than direct classroom observation, which may affect the interpretation of how UDL and RA are implemented in practice. Practical implications Pedagogical (technical) practices emerged from the literature and the field, allowing the readers (professors) to apply them in the teaching and learning process to include ASD students in HEIs. Social implications The suggested practices in Table 1 and the discussion allow professors and students to know more about what they can offer or ask in the learning process. These practices include more ASD students, and they can be applied to all students. In the end, learning will not be just a matter of ASD students’ inclusion but an opportunity to improve the classes and the relationship between professors and students. Originality/value This study provides HEIs and faculty members with evidence of inclusive teaching practices, highlighting both strengths and areas requiring improvement. It contributes to the literature by examining the combined application of UDL and RA for ASD students in higher education, particularly in relation to SDG 4, filling a gap not extensively explored in Scopus- or Web of Science-indexed publications.