Exploring Online Teaching Presence and UDL Principles for Attention Equity

A Phenomenological Inquiry of Doctoral Students’ Lived Experiences

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2026.520

Keywords:

attention, online learning, teaching presence, Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

Abstract

The proliferation of online learning in higher education highlights the need for a deeper understanding of students' experiences with instructional design that mitigate distractions impacting learning outcomes. This qualitative phenomenological study explores the lived experiences of nine doctoral students in online EdD courses at a mid-sized public university in the southeastern United States. Semi-structured interview data analyzed using van Manen’s (2014) hermeneutic phenomenological method explored how teaching presence and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles influence students’ ability to maintain attention and satisfaction with their learning experiences. Findings suggest that clear, organized instructional design fosters engagement and motivation, while timely feedback from instructors enhances attention and learning continuity. The study underscores the importance of integrating both UDL principles and effective teaching presence to support attention equity and improve educational outcomes. These insights are particularly valuable for educators and administrators aiming to enhance online learning environments in EdD programs.

References

Almeqdad, Q. I., Alodat, A. M., Alquraan, M. F., Mohaidat, M. A., & Al-Makhzoomy, A. K. (2023). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10(1). 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2218191

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Gazit, T., Bar-Ilan, J., Perez, O., Aharony, N., Bronstein, J., & Dyne, T. S. (2016). Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875

Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2009.1.5

Bender, T. (2023). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, practice and assessment. Taylor & Francis.

BestColleges. (2025). Online education trends report. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/annual-trends-in-online-education/

Burke, R. A., Jirout, J. J., & Bell, B. A. (2024). Understanding cognitive engagement in virtual discussion boards. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14697874241230991. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241230991

Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate (2024). The CPED framework. https://www.cpedinitiative.org/the-framework

CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Center for Applied Special Technology. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/

CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. Retrieved from https://udlguidelines.cast.org

Chadha, A. (2017). Comparing student reflectiveness in online discussion forums across modes of instruction and levels of courses. Journal of Educators Online, 14(2). 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2017.14.2.8

Chardin, M., & Novak, K. (2021). Equity by design: Delivering on the power and promise of UDL. Corwin Press, Inc.

Cleveland-Innes, M. F., Stenbom, S., & Garrison, D. R. (Eds.). (2024). The design of digital learning environments: Online and blended applications of the community of inquiry (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003246206

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Dell, C., Dell, T., & Blackwell, T. (2015). Applying Universal Design for Learning in online courses: Pedagogical and practical considerations. Journal of Educators Online, 12(2), 166–192. https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2015_12_2/dell_dell_blackwell

Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The current ecosystem of learning management systems in higher education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives [Research report]. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. http://www.educause.edu/ecar

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Delaney, D., Kummer, T. F., & Singh, K. (2019). Evaluating the impact of online discussion boards on student engagement with group work. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 902–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12614

Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: The role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 157–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6

Gao, F., Zhang, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012 .01330.x

Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers, G. A. Berg, J. V. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. D. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). IGI Global.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071

Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Gillick, M., & Magoulias, C. (2020). Competing against outside distractions in online classrooms for grade-school students. Research Gate. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25181.13285

Heidegger, M. (2005). Introduction to phenomenological research (D. O. Dahlstrom, Trans.). Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1923).

Houston, L. (2018). Efficient strategies for integrating Universal design for learning in the online classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3), n3. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2018.15.3.4

Howell, G. S., Akapnudo, U., Chen, M., Sutherlin, A. L., & James, L. E. (2014). The effect of structured divergent prompts on knowledge construction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i2.410

Husserl, E. (1977). Phenomenological psychology. (J. Scanlon, Trans.). Springer.

Kleinsasser, R., & Hong, Y. C. (2016). Online group work design: Processes, complexities, and intricacies. TechTrends, 60, 569–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0088-6

Kyei-Blankson, L., Blankson, J., Ntuli, E., & Agyeman, C. (2015). Handbook of research on strategic management of interaction, presence, and participation in online courses. IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/interacting-at-a-distance/21004

Larson, E., Aroz, J., & Nordin, E. (2019). The Goldilocks paradox: The need for instructor presence but not too much in an online discussion forum. Journal of Instructional Research, 8(2), 22–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.9743/JIR.2019.8.2.3

Lieberman, M. (2019, March 27). Discussion boards: Valuable? overused? discuss. Inside Higher Ed, 27. http://insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/03/27/new-approaches-discussion-boards-aim-dynamic-online-learning

Majeski, R. A., Stover, M., & Valais, T. (2018). The community of inquiry and emotional presence. Adult Learning, 29(2), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159518758696

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2004). Maurice Merleau-Ponty: Basic writings [T. Baldwin, Ed.]. Psychology Press.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2023, December). Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2021 and fall 2022. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_311.15.asp

Novak, K. (2016) UDL Now: A teacher’s guide to applying Universal Design for Learning in today’s classrooms, CAST, Inc.

Novak, K., & Thibodeau, T. (2021). UDL in the cloud: How to design and delivery online education using Universal Design for Learning, CAST, Inc.

Pena-Shaff, J., & Altman, W. (2015). Student interaction and knowledge construction in case-based learning in Educational Psychology using online discussions: The role of structure. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26(3), 307–329.

Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning, 21(3), 166–190. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225

Rao, K., Torres, C., & Smith, S. (2021) Digital tools and UDL-based instructional strategies to support students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 36(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643421998327

Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-based lessons. Sage Open, 6(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016680688

Rahimi, S., Hall, N. C., & Sticca, F. (2023). Understanding academic procrastination: A longitudinal analysis of procrastination and emotions in undergraduate and graduate students. Motivation and Emotion, 47(4), 554–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-023-10010-9

Rogers, S. A., & Gronseth, S. L. (2021). Applying UDL to online active learning. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.59668/223.3748

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'ducation Distance, 14(2), 50–71.

Schroeder, M., Makarenko, E., & Warren, K. (2019). Introducing a late bank in online graduate courses: The response of students. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2). 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.2.8200

Shea, P., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.915

Thompson, J. T. (2006). Best practices in asynchronous online course discussions. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 3, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v3i7.1698

Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2008). The management of confidentiality and anonymity in social research. International journal of social research methodology, 11(5), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701622231

Wu, J. Y., & Xie, C. (2018). Using time pressure and note-taking to prevent digital distraction behavior and enhance online search performance: Perspectives from the load theory of attention and cognitive control. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.008

van Manen (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge.

Downloads

Published

2026-07-29

How to Cite

Townley, C., & Stork, M. (2026). Exploring Online Teaching Presence and UDL Principles for Attention Equity: A Phenomenological Inquiry of Doctoral Students’ Lived Experiences . Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 11(3), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2026.520

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 3 (2026): Regular Issue

Section

Research Manuscripts

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Christina Townley, Michele Stork

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.