Pedagogical Trends and Inclusive Practices in Indian STEMM Higher Education: An Exploratory Survey

Abstract This study maps pedagogical practices among STEMM faculty in Indian higher education, identifying patterns of pedagogy adoption across traditional, active, experiential and research-oriented approaches. 93 faculty from diverse STEMM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine) across India responded to the survey. A structured exploratory survey captured demographic data—including teaching experience (<1 to >10 years) and student age groups (primarily 18–25 years)—alongside self-reported instructional methods. Responders also skewed toward life sciences and engineering and many taught undergraduates in Indian Higher Education Institutes. 59% of faculty reported no prior experience teaching students with disabilities, highlighting limited faculty exposure to disability-inclusive teaching within the surveyed sample. While faculty spend dedicated break time developing new techniques, structural barriers like computational diversity and language differences persist. 10 variable teaching approaches were evaluated by faculty responders such as such as chalk-and-talk lectures, problem-based learning, group work, term projects, asynchronous methods, journal clubs etc. A 5-point Likert scale captured the frequency of teaching approaches, while additional items measured time allocated to learning new techniques during breaks. One of our main findings highlights the continued prevalence of traditional teaching practices alongside the gradual adoption of active learning approaches, suggesting that pedagogical change in Indian higher education may occur through gradual layering rather than replacement and offering implications for faculty development in resource-constrained contexts. Nonetheless, it is evident among our respondents that faculty members would be willing to embrace innovative teaching strategies, as long as institutional support is extended, especially in terms of time. STEMM faculty are embracing teaching strategies that are continuous and student-focused and thus match NEP 2020 objectives. Nevertheless, moving from lecture-based instructionto an inclusive form of education needs sufficient preparation time and faculty training in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) frameworks. We suggest that UDL training among STEMM faculty members should move beyond compliance measures and into a pathway to making classroom learning more engaging, inclusive and as a means of tackling structural barriers.