Hostile Learning Design and How to Avoid It

Hostile learning design occurs when course policies or technologies unintentionally create barriers unrelated to learning outcomes. These barriers often stem from rigid assessments, surveillance‑based practices, inaccessible materials, or single‑mode participation requirements. Common examples include:

• Tight, single-sitting timed exams
• Image-only questions or media without text alternatives
• Virtual proctoring that requires constant eye contact, specific postures, or controlled environments
• Mandatory camera-on policies
• Engagement tools that lack keyboard navigation, captions, or screen-reader compatibility

Why It Matters

Hostile learning design creates barriers that are unrelated to learning outcomes, undermining equity, student well-being, and institutional commitments to accessibility. When courses rely on rigid structures or surveillance-based assessments, students often are required to seek individual accommodations rather than being supported through inclusive design from the outset.

For example, a tightly timed, remotely proctored exam may disadvantage students with anxiety, neurodivergent learners, or those using assistive technology. In this case, assessment prioritizes speed, technical compliance, and monitoring over the intended outcomes of understanding and application which does not align with UDL principles that emphasize flexibility and multiple means of engagement.

Avoiding hostile design does not lower standards. Instead, it reflects best practice in accessible course design by ensuring that assessments measures what they are intended to measure, while minimizing unnecessary barriers to learners.

To prevent hostile learning design, consider the following principles which align with USask’s guidance on Universal Design for Learning and accessible teaching practices.

• Accessibility by default: Design the primary learning path to be accessible from the start
• Multiple means of engagement and expression: Offer more than one way to participate and demonstrate learning
• Proportionality: Match security or participation requirements to actual risk and learning outcomes
• Transparency: Clearly explain expectations, rationales, and alternatives
• Privacy and dignity: Minimize intrusive monitoring and data collection

Common Scenarios and Inclusive Alternatives

*Rigid Timed Exams

Risk: Prioritizes speed over learning; disadvantages students with access need. Inclusive alternatives:    • Extended availability windows with reasonable time limits    • Open-book, application-based questions    • Case-based or project-based assessments    • Structured oral exams/reflections focused on explaining reasoning rather than rapid recall        ▫︎ Provide questions or prompts in advance        ▫︎ Allow note use and flexible pacing        ▫︎ Offer clear evaluation criteria to reduce performance anxiety.

*Surveillance-Based Virtual Proctoring

Risk: Raises privacy concerns, increases anxiety, and disproportionately flags neurodivergent learners. Inclusive alternatives:    • Authentic assessments with unique prompts    • Open-resource exams that assess analysis, not recall    • Integrity pledges and identity verification without continuous video monitoring    • Brief oral assessments (e.g. 5–10-minute check-ins) when verification is needed        ▫︎ Use selectively and transparently        ▫︎ Design as conversational demonstrations of understanding, not interrogations.

*Inaccessible Media and Image-Only Content

Risk: Excludes screen-reader users, low-vision learners, students with color-vision differences, and those with low-bandwidth connections. Note: Some instructors have used image-only content to deter AI use; however newer AI tools can interpret images effectively, while accessibility barriers remain. Inclusive alternatives:    • Alt text or descriptive text for images and diagrams    • Captions and transcripts for audio and video    • Data tables alongside charts and graphs    • Optional oral explanations or narrated walkthroughs that complement visual materials and allow multiple means of engagement.

*Mandatory Camera-On or Synchronous-Only Participation

Risk: Excludes students with bandwidth limitations, privacy concerns, or safety needs. Note: Some instructors have used image-only content to deter AI use; however newer AI tools can interpret images effectively, while accessibility barriers remain. Inclusive alternatives:    • Participation through chat, polls, discussion boards, reflections, or collaborative documents    • Camera-optional policies with clear engagement norms    • Captioned recordings and summaries for review    • Flexible oral participation options (e.g. audio-only contributions, small group discussions, recorded responses) that respect privacy and access needs.

 

Design Note on Oral Assessment

Oral assessments can improve academic integrity and accessibility when they are structured, predictable, and student‑centered. Provide preparation materials, clear rubrics, and flexibility. Avoid high‑pressure or interrogative formats that recreate the same barriers as rigid timed exams.

Inclusive Assessment Without Surveillance

Academic integrity is strengthened—not weakened—by assessments that emphasize critical thinking and authentic application. Effective strategies include:

• Authentic, application-based assessments (e.g., case analyses, projects, reflections)
• Randomized question banks or parameterized problems
• Clear integrity statements and expectations t
• Multiple lower-stakes assessments
• Structured oral assessments or brief oral check-ins 

When thoughtfully designed, oral assessments can enhance academic integrity and accessibility. However, unstructured or high-pressure oral exams can themselves become a form of hostile design. Applying the same UDL principles—clarity, flexibility, and reduced unnecessary barriers—is essential.

For additional guidance and institutionally supported approaches, instructors are encouraged to consult USask’s Securing Digital Assessments resources and other helpful articles, which provide practical strategies for maintaining academic integrity while supporting accessible, student-centered assessment design. 

• Securing Digital Assessments 
• Authentic Assessment
• Easy Ways to Make Your Course More Accessible
• Inclusive Participation and Privacy in Teaching
• Transparent Assessments: Supporting Equity and Learning

A Simple Self-Audit for Instructors

This brief self-audit helps instructors identify whether course design choices support meaningful learning and accessibility—or unintentionally introduce barriers unrelated to learning outcomes. Ask yourself:

• Do assessments measure learning outcomes rather than speed or compliance?
• Are all materials accessible (captions, alt text, readable formats)?
• Are policies flexible by design, rather than by exception?
• Are there multiple ways for students to participate and demonstrate learning?

Red flags include “no exceptions” policies, camera mandates, image-only assessments, and surveillance-first exam design. 

Use the table below as a quick reference guide to ask yourself if you are creating inclusive design.

Area	Don't (Hostile)	Do (Inclusive)
Exams	Single-sitting, short windows; continuous video proctoring	Extended windows; authentic items; integrity pledge; small oral checks
Media	Image-only, no alt text; uncaptioned videos	Alt text/long descriptions; captions/transcripts; data tables
Participation	Camera-mandatory; voice-only	Multi-modal (chat, forums, reflections, collaborative docs)
Tools	Unvetted third-party apps	Accessibility-vetted tools; documented alternatives
Policies	“No exceptions”; documentation demanded for basic flexibility	Structured flexibility (grace windows, equivalent alternatives); minimal info required

Final Note

Avoiding hostile learning design strengthens—not weakens—academic standards. By pairing clear structure with accessible materials, authentic assessment, and proportionate integrity measures, instructors can create learning environments that are rigorous, equitable, and aligned with the diverse realities of today’s students.

Connect with the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning to get support if you have questions on inclusive teaching!

---

^{Title image credit: Geralt on Pixabay.com
This article was created with the assistance of AI tools, as described in the GMCTL AI Disclosure Statement.}

This resource is shared by the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning (GMCTL), University of Saskatchewan, under a CC BY-NC-SA license.