South African universities should judge inclusion not by who is enrolled but by who is able to participate fully in learning, according to an education specialist writing in Times Higher Education.
Presence is not the same as participation
The article, by Sunah Cho, draws on a South Korean television series to illustrate a familiar classroom dynamic: some students are physically present and officially registered but remain peripheral to meaningful academic activity. Cho uses the Korean word kkakdugi—a metaphor for the ‘spare player’ or the diced radish kimchi—to describe learners who are allowed into courses yet are not counted as full participants.
“Belonging should not mean only that students feel welcome; it should mean that, whatever their ways of learning and contributing, students are positioned as legitimate participants, not merely accommodated.”
Cho frames this gap as a design problem rather than a failing of particular students. She argues that accessibility work and general appeals to belonging are insufficient unless the learning environment is intentionally built to include diverse ways of learning, communicating and demonstrating knowledge.
Universal Design for Learning as a discipline of perception
Reporting from a University of British Columbia fellows programme on Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Cho describes UDL less as a toolbox and more as a habit of noticing barriers before learners must disclose needs or struggle. This reframing places responsibility on course designers and institutions to anticipate variation in learners’ needs and to reduce the burden on students to adapt.
For South African universities—where classrooms include a wide range of linguistic, socio-economic and learning backgrounds—the UDL approach offers a shift in emphasis: from retrofitting accommodations after problems arise to designing curricula, assessment and teaching practices that work for the broadest range of learners from the outset.
- Design for variability: assume students will approach tasks differently and provide multiple ways to access and demonstrate learning.
- Reduce disclosure burden: create systems where students do not have to declare a disability or difference to receive appropriate support.
- Reassess belonging: measure inclusion by participation and learning outcomes, not only by feelings of welcome or registration figures.
Practical implications for lecturers and institutions
Cho’s piece suggests concrete shifts that are within reach of lecturers and academic developers. These include varied assessment formats, clearer scaffolding of tasks, accessible course materials, and classroom routines that normalise diverse communication styles. Approaches that foreground predictability and multiple expression options can reduce anxiety and make assessment practices fairer.
For institutional leaders, the argument points to policy adjustments: embed UDL principles in teaching development programmes, align disability and teaching units, and collect participation-focused measures that go beyond enrolment statistics.
| Observed problem | UDL-oriented response |
|---|---|
| Students enrolled but not participating meaningfully | Design courses with flexible access points and multiple means of engagement |
| Support relies on students declaring needs | Create defaults that reduce need for disclosure and enable access for many |
| Belonging defined by welcome, not learning | Measure inclusion by participation and outcomes, not only sentiment |
The article does not present South African data, but its core message resonates with long-standing concerns in the local higher-education sector: widening participation initiatives must be matched by pedagogies that ensure those who enter the academy can thrive. Measuring success by enrolment increases alone risks leaving many students as kkakdugi—present but peripheral.
Reorienting policy and classroom practice around UDL will not be a simple, one-size-fits-all fix. It requires investment in staff development, inclusive curriculum review and reliable access to learning materials. Nevertheless, the change advocated is pragmatic: a shift in how institutions perceive design and responsibility, with the aim of making university learning truly accessible to the breadth of learners who enter South African campuses.
For students, parents and teachers concerned about whether access translates into fair opportunity, the implication is clear: belonging should be assessed by whether learners can participate, contribute and demonstrate their knowledge—not merely by whether they are on the register or in the lecture theatre.
