Content Creation Tools Used

Bar chart showing usage frequency of content creation and learning tools by respondents. PowerPoint leads with 16 users, followed by Generative AI at 14, Microsoft Office and Canva around 9-10, with remaining tools like YouTube, Google Suite, and Mentimeter having fewer than 8 users each.

The chart shows the distribution of content creation and learning tools currently used by respondents in higher education teaching and learning practice. Traditional tools remain dominant, with PowerPoint the most frequently cited resource, indicating its continued central role in instructional design. However, the high prevalence of Generative AI tools—encompassing platforms such as ChatGPT and Copilot—highlights a significant shift toward AI‑supported content development. Canva and Microsoft Office also feature prominently, suggesting widespread adoption of visual design and productivity tools to support inclusive and accessible materials. The relatively strong use of YouTube further reflects the importance of video‑based resources in contemporary teaching. Overall, the pattern indicates a blended ecosystem in which established presentation software coexists with rapidly emerging AI‑enabled tools, with clear implications for staff development, accessibility guidance, and institutional digital strategy.

Most Relevant Parts of the Toolkit

bar chart showing tools planned for use, led by Diversasia Toolkit, Generative AI, mobile apps, and accessibility tools.

The bar chart shows how frequently different components of the Inclusive Education Toolkit were identified as most relevant by respondents. Guidelines are the most commonly selected component, followed closely by Case Studies and the Best Practice Database, indicating a strong preference for practical, example-based resources. Mobile App and Moodle Portal are also widely mentioned, suggesting interest in digital and platform-based support. Less frequently selected components, such as the Glossary and Engagement App, still appear across responses, highlighting the Toolkit’s broad relevance across diverse needs and contexts.

Tools Particpants Plan to Use or Share

bar chart showing tools planned for use, led by Diversasia Toolkit, Generative AI, mobile apps, and accessibility tools.

The chart shows which tools participants plan to use or share after the session. The Diversasia Toolkit is the most frequently mentioned tool, showing that it is the main resource participants intend to use or promote. Generative AI tools are the next most common, indicating strong interest in using AI to support inclusive teaching.Several participants also plan to use mobile apps, Google Lighthouse, and low‑vision support tools, suggesting a focus on accessibility and flexible digital solutions.

Many other tools are mentioned only once, such as screen readers, H5P, accessibility toolkits, and assistive technologies for specific needs. This shows a wide range of interests, but with smaller numbers exploring more specialised tools.

Overall, the chart suggests that participants are most interested in practical toolkits and digital technologies that support inclusive and accessible learning, while also experimenting with a variety of more specific tools depending on their local needs.

Confidence in Preparing Inclusive Learning Materials

Horizontal bar chart showing the number of respondents rating their confidence in preparing inclusive learning materials on a scale from 1 to 5. Most responses are clustered at ratings 3, 4, and 5, with fewer responses at ratings 1 and 2, indicating generally moderate to high confidence.

Most respondents reported medium to high confidence (ratings 3–5) in preparing inclusive learning materials.

Understanding the Purpose of the Toolkit

Bar chart displaying respondents’ self‑reported understanding of the purpose of the Inclusive Education Toolkit on a scale from 1 to 5. Higher ratings, particularly 4 and 5, have the tallest bars, while lower ratings appear less frequently.

Ratings indicate a strong understanding of the purpose of the Inclusive Education Toolkit following the workshop.

Confidence in Applying Inclusive Education Principles

Bar chart illustrating respondents’ confidence in applying inclusive education principles after exploring the Toolkit, measured on a five‑point scale. The majority of responses fall at levels 4 and 5, with relatively few

Participants generally expressed high confidence in applying inclusive education principles after engaging with the Toolkit.

Awareness of the Toolkit Before the Workshop

Bar chart showing whether respondents were aware of the Inclusive Education Toolkit or similar resources before the workshop. Responses are distributed across options such as “Yes,” “No,” and “Somewhat,” with no single category completely dominating.

Responses show mixed levels of prior awareness, underlining the importance of dissemination activities.

 

Likelihood of Integrating the Toolkit in Future Practice

Bar chart presenting how likely respondents are to integrate any part of the Inclusive Education Toolkit into future teaching or learning practices, rated from 1 to 5. Higher likelihood ratings show more responses than lower ratings.

Most respondents indicated a high likelihood of integrating Toolkit resources into future practice.

Last modified: Thursday, 16 April 2026, 9:55 PM