By Nancy Shore, STEM & Health Sciences Librarian,
Columbus State University,
Erin Tan, Head of Access Services,
Columbus State University, Columbus, GA
and
Kristina Clement, Assistant Director of Academic Engagement and Instruction and Instruction Coordinator,
Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA

Introduction

Student employees play an important role in the daily operations of academic libraries, contributing to access services, user engagement, and special projects while simultaneously developing transferable skills for future employment (McKenna, 2020; Sterling, 2015). The student employees benefit from meaningful participation in campus operations and financial support for their work in academic libraries, while library supervisors face challenges in training, motivating, and retaining a transient workforce. Traditional supervisory strategies geared for full-time staff often emphasize efficiency and policy adherence, but they may fall short in supporting the diverse learning needs of student workers, particularly those who are first-generation or neurodivergent (Accardo et al., 2024; Becker-Redd et al., 2018). Emerging scholarship suggests that extending inclusive pedagogical frameworks, commonly applied within classroom contexts, into campus workplaces can help address these challenges. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) emphasizes proactive planning to reduce barriers by offering multiple means of engagement, representation, and action (Smith, 2025), while Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TILT) highlights the value of clearly communicating purpose, tasks, and criteria for assignments and job responsibilities (Winkelmes, 2023). Both frameworks demonstrate positive impacts on student confidence, belonging, and persistence in employment settings and hold potential to enrich student experience as employees in academic libraries.

This article explores how inclusive pedagogies can shape the hiring, training, onboarding, and professional development of library student workers. Drawing on recent literature and case studies, it considers the benefits of incorporating UDL and TILT practices for both supervisors and student employees. Particular attention is given to equity for first-generation and neurodivergent students, whose experiences may be shaped by barriers related to privilege, preparation, experience, or stigma (Accardo et al., 2024; Bastone & Clement, 2022). By reimagining student employment as an opportunity for personal learning and professional development rather than solely viewing students as a labor resource, academic libraries can position themselves as equitable partners in student success while cultivating the next generation of professionals.

The literature review situates this discussion within the broader scholarship on student employment in libraries, inclusive pedagogy, and equity in higher education. Studies on student worker training and retention provide insight into the operational challenges libraries face (McKenna, 2020; Sterling, 2015), while recent examinations of cross-departmental training models underscore the need for intentional, structured approaches to student employee development (Becker-Redd et al., 2018). At the same time, research on current pedagogies and methodologies offers compelling evidence that inclusive practices can foster greater student engagement, confidence, and persistence in and outside of the classroom (Smith, 2025; Winkelmes, 2023).

Finally, this article will illustrate how two institutions have begun to incorporate these classroom-based concepts into academic library employment, improving the experience for employees and supervisors. Each institution provides a unique narrative that showcases opportunities for growth and inspiration for other academic libraries to incorporate these inclusive pedagogies into their own training and onboarding of student workers. The ultimate goal is that academic libraries can move beyond transactional employment models toward more equitable, pedagogically informed practices that prepare student employees for success both within and beyond the bounds of higher education.

Literature Review

The use of inclusive pedagogy in higher education has gained increased attention in recent years, particularly as higher education institutions grapple with the dual goals of access and equity for diverse student populations. Though much of the literature has focused on classroom instruction, extending frameworks such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CAST, 2024) and Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TILT) (Winklemes et al., 2016) to academic library environments presents promising opportunities, particularly in the training and onboarding of student employees. Academic libraries depend on student employees to sustain essential services and these roles can also serve as structured sites of learning and professional growth. Extending inclusive pedagogies beyond the classroom and applying them to student employment provides academic library supervisors with a coherent design framework that affirms diverse learners and cultivates transferable workplace skills. The following review situates UDL and TILT within higher education scholarship, examines current applications of the frameworks in academic library settings, and highlights implications of using inclusive pedagogies specifically for first-generation and neurodivergent student workers in academic libraries.

Inclusive Pedagogy in Higher Education

In Pegagogy of the Oppressed , Freire (2000) critiqued the “banking” model of education and advanced a dialogic, problem-posing approach that humanizes learners and centers their lived experience. Freire’s critical stance substantiated contemporary inclusive frameworks by foregrounding the principles of agency, transparency, and praxis, which were later operationalized in models such as UDL and TILT. Building from this foundation, inclusive pedagogy in higher education is conceptually fragmented but widely recognized as essential for equity (Fornauf & Erickson, 2020; A. Lombardi et al., 2013; A. R. Lombardi et al., 2011; Mcguire et al., 2006). To orient this landscape, Stentiford and Koutsouris (2020) conducted a systematic scoping review of inclusive pedagogies in higher education, and concluded that “inclusion in education is not an objectively agreed upon concept whereby everyone is working towards one fixed and common goal” (p. 2258). They identified three primary approaches to inclusion: commonality, where instruction is designed to accommodate all learners; needs-specific, where instruction is designed to meet sub-group needs; and individuality, where tailored interventions address unique needs.

Universal Design for Learning

Within this conceptual map, Universal Design (UD) and related higher-education models, such as Universal Design for Instruction (UDI), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and Universal Instructional Design (UID), provide instructors with well-established frameworks for developing inclusive learning environments (Mcguire et al., 2006). Fornauf and Erickson (2020) discussed the unintentional conflation of UDL with special education, or limiting UDL to pedagogy for disabled students, and explored UDL as a framework focused on “learner variability rather than disability” (p. 184). However, Mcguire et al. (2006) acknowledged that disabilities are “viewed as a normal phenomenon of human diversity” and therefore, universal design can be beneficial for a wide range of students to anticipate their needs (p. 173). UDL is particularly popular in higher education given how the framework emphasizes anticipating learner variability and minimizes stigma associated with accommodations (Black et al., 2014; Izzo, 2012; Schreiber, 2017; Smith, 2025).

Against this backdrop, empirical work both emphasizes UDL’s potential and reveals implementation hurdles. As A.R. Lombardi et al. (2011) noted, UDL holds promise for improving outcomes for students with “diverse learning styles and from historically underrepresented student populations” (p. 260). Yet, A. Lombardi et al. (2013) observed that faculty “face new challenges in planning for, delivering, and evaluating instruction” (p. 221) to students with nonvisible disabilities. Schreiber (2017) stresses that planning UDL at the curriculum level, rather than retrofitting accommodations, helps instructors anticipate variability and reduce barriers in everyday lesson design. Additional studies of faculty practice further demonstrate broad benefits when UDL principles guide instruction and assessment. Black et al. (2014) described how lack of faculty experience with student accommodations can limit the application of UDI and UDL principles, and found that most “faculty understood that all students, not just those with disabilities, could benefit and learn from a variety of teaching methods” (p. 56). Similarly, Izzo (2012) reviewed the implementation of UDL and found that “UDL strategies enhance learning for all students” (p. 344), not just students with disabilities, and UDL can be liberating for faculty by allowing them to find flexible assessment methods that “serve a diverse population of learners” (p. 349). Extending this logic, Smith’s (2025) dissertation discovered “the importance of expanding accessibility and UDL initiatives beyond the classroom and into all areas of student support” (p. 130), suggesting that UDL is a flexible framework for multiple modalities of instruction.

Transparency in Teaching and Learning

Complementing UDL’s emphasis on variability, Transparency in Teaching and Learning (TILT) has also gained traction in higher education as an inclusive pedagogical practice. Developed by Mary-Ann Winklemes in the early 2010s, the TILT framework allows teachers and students to communicate more clearly about the applicability of classroom tasks to real-life through clear instructions and evaluation criteria. Winklemes (2023) described TILT as a tripartite framework—purpose, task, and criteria—that improves students’ academic confidence, persistence, and sense of belonging, with particularly strong effects for underserved populations. Winklemes et al. (2016) observed that greater transparency in two classroom assignments resulted in increased academic confidence, as well as an increase in motivation and focus in the classroom, amongst first-generation, low-income, and underserved students. The practice of using TILT has long-term benefits that promote and support student success and Winklemes et al. (2016) encouraged faculty to receive training on this inclusive practice in order to retain underserved students.

At the same time, Akella (2022) cautioned via a Foucauldian lens that overspecifying purpose, task, and criteria can normalize compliance and narrow students’ autonomy and creativity, especially if transparency drifts into prescriptive step-by-step templates. Akella’s critique suggested calibrating TILT to invite originality (e.g., broad parameters and creativity-weighted criteria) while retaining the equity gains associated with clearer expectations. Beyond assignment design, Jacobs (2023) showed how TILT can structure study-skills interventions by making the process of studying transparent. Although Jacobs’ single-assignment case did not improve exam scores relative to prior cohorts, she argued that transparency around study tactics likely requires iterative practice. This practical extension of TILT helps bridge classroom pedagogy to adjacent learning contexts. Taken together, UDL’s anticipatory design and TILT’s explicit communication provide a coherent foundation for extending inclusive pedagogy beyond coursework. Table 1 outlines the core aspects of UDL and TILT. While there are numerous other methods of inclusive pedagogy and types of inclusive frameworks for higher education, UDL and TILT are perhaps two of the most appropriate to provide a foundation for extending inclusive pedagogy beyond the classroom to student employment in academic libraries.

Table 1: Core aspects of UDL and TILT

Aspect	Universal Design For Learning (UDL)	Transparency in Teaching and Learning (TILT)
Main focus	Design the learning environment to reduce barriers for all learners	Make the purpose, tasks, and criteria of work explicit.
Key question	“How can I offer multiple ways for students to choose how they learn?”	“How can I clearly explain why, what, and how for this task?”
What it shapes	Structure, materials, activities, and options.	Instructions, assignment prompts, and feedback conversations.
Core elements	Design with multiple means of engagement; multiple means of representation; and multiple means of action and expression.	Purpose, task, criteria.
Equity contribution	Normalizes flexibility and access from the start.	Reduces “hidden curriculum” and unclear expectations.

Applying Inclusive Pedagogy to Academic Library Services and Training

In library environments, inclusive pedagogy has the potential to shape both patron interactions and employee development. Knoff and Hobscheid (2021) argued that equity requires service policies to be enacted through informed pedagogy, with an emphasis on integration of UDL principles, and utilizing cultural competence practices at service points. Bastone and Clement (2022) similarly critiqued the widespread reliance on the “one-shot” classroom instructional model traditionally performed by academic librarians, which they characterized as a form of “faux-equity.” By treating all students the same, one-shot sessions obscure structural inequities and limit deeper engagement. Both studies suggested that inclusive pedagogy requires moving beyond uniformity to flexible, transparent practices, which are principles that can be applied equally to the training and onboarding of student workers.

Research on student employee training demonstrates the effectiveness of interactive, multimodal approaches aligned with UDL. At Fordham University, Becker-Redd et al. (2018) redesigned student worker training for a new cross-departmental service model, emphasizing role-playing, group sessions, and peer reinforcement. These methods improved engagement and accountability while preparing students for diverse responsibilities. Similarly, McKenna (2020) outlined pragmatic strategies including structured assessments, online training tools, and regular training to promote student employee efficiency while ensuring consistency of presentations. Both models embody UDL and TILT principles and illustrate training programs that anticipate learner variability and clearly communicated expectations.

Retention and motivation are also essential elements of inclusive onboarding, particularly in student employees in which longevity and retention of student employees can alleviate staffing burdens (McKenna, 2020; Sterling, 2015). Sterling (2015) identified six low-cost motivational strategies: encouraging autonomy, organizing contests, providing food, welcoming suggestions, leveraging strengths, and celebrating events. All of these strategies can foster morale and reduce turnover among student workers in academic libraries. Additionally, McKenna (2020) suggested that creating mentor relationships between students and supervisors can boost morale and create a culture that will promote retention, as well as aid in recruitment of future student employees. While not explicitly framed as inclusive pedagogy, these practices align with UDL’s emphasis on multiple means of engagement by affirming students’ agency and creating multiple pathways for participation.

First-Generation Students and Academic Library Employment

Inclusive frameworks are especially relevant for first-generation students, who often encounter barriers related to the hidden curriculum of higher education. Couture et al. (2021) documented how first-generation students demonstrate resilience and self-advocacy, but acknowledged how these students may hesitate to seek help in academic libraries due to unspoken expectations of knowledge. Couture et al.’s (2021) asset-based approach emphasized students’ strengths, cultural wealth, and adaptability, while challenging deficit perspectives. For academic library supervisors, applying TILT principles to student employment, such as clarifying the purpose of tasks, outlining steps explicitly, and articulating evaluation or success criteria, can reduce hidden knowledge barriers and support first-generation student workers. TILT’s emphasis on purpose-task-criteria is especially salient for day-to-day student work in the academic library (e.g., service desk protocols, shelving and stacks maintenance, event support, or basic metadata projects), where transparency about why a task matters, how to complete it, and what “good” looks like can normalize help-seeking and accelerate skill acquisition (Winklemes, 2023; Winkelmes et al., 2016).

TILT principles have the potential to support first-generation students in unmasking hidden knowledge, developing professional confidence, and gaining transferable skills. Beyond classroom assignments, recent work shows how TILT can also make the process of learning more explicit. Jacobs (2023) used TILT to structure study-skills instruction, noting that a single, transparent intervention did not immediately improve exam performance, but likely requires iterative practice over time. This insight translates directly to academic library student employment. Supervisors can scaffold repeated, low-stakes practice across shifts beginning with shadowing, moving to guided practice, and graduating to independent performance with spot checks. Scaffolding also allows supervisors to restate purpose, clarify steps, and re-articulate criteria for success. In this way, TILT functions as a practical antidote to the hidden curriculum and hidden knowledge of campus workplaces, helping first generation student employees unmask tacit expectations, build professional confidence, and develop transferable skills.

Neurodivergent Students and Inclusive Employment

If first-generation status illuminates the hidden curriculum and hidden knowledge, neurodiversity emphasizes differences in cognitive processing and environmental needs that student employment supervisors should proactively anticipate through intentional design. Neurodivergent students may face distinct challenges that traditional accommodations often fail to address. Accardo et al. (2024) identified accommodation priorities among neurodivergent students, faculty, and staff, including expanded mental health supports, faculty training in UDL, and recognition of neurodiversity within inclusivity initiatives. Potential barriers to access, identified by Accardo et al. (2024), included executive functioning demands, sensory sensitivities, and stigma associated with disclosure. Applying UDL principles to student employment begins to address these barriers by providing multimodal training materials, offering flexibility in demonstrating mastery, and normalizing variability in work performance. Such practices allow neurodivergent student employees to thrive without requiring disclosure, reinforcing equity and belonging in the workplace. Framing neurodiversity as an anticipated dimension of learner variability shifts responsibility from individual disclosure to organizational design, creating conditions for more equitable supervisory practices.

Operationalizing conditions for the implementation of inclusive pedagogy outside of the classroom relies on building supervisory capacity and structures that embed inclusive practices into everyday operations. Smith’s (2025) dissertation further highlighted the role of support personnel in implementing UDL across higher education to reduce barriers for diverse student populations, including neurodiverse students. While studying advisors, academic coaches, and faculty, Smith found that professional development and institutional policy are critical to ensuring consistent and inclusive practices. Her findings can be extended to suggest that library supervisors, as front-line mentors to student employees, require similar training in order to apply UDL intentionally in hiring, training, and professional development processes. Thoughtful and intentional implementation of UDL was also discussed by Knoff and Hobscheid (2021) as an impactful approach for academic libraries to “prioritize learning and… intellectual growth above a transactional service interaction…” (p. 19). In academic library settings, this translates into supervisor preparation that pairs UDL-informed job design with unit-level policies that normalize flexibility. Together, these steps align student employment with the academic library’s learning mission while directly improving conditions for neurodivergent student employees.

Implications for Libraries

Together, these select studies illustrate the potential of UDL and TILT to transform student employment in academic libraries into equitable, meaningful learning experiences. By anticipating learner variability through UDL, and clarifying expectations through TILT, academic library supervisors can reduce barriers, especially for first-generation and neurodivergent students who may enter library roles with limited prior work experience or confidence. Motivation and retention strategies (Sterling, 2015), structured and multimodal training (McKenna, 2020; Becker-Redd et al., 2018), and the enactment of uniform and inclusive policies through consistent and engaged pedagogy (Knoff & Hobscheid, 2021) provide guidance to library supervisors and instructional designers. At the same time, critiques of rigidly uniform approaches (Bastone & Clement, 2022; McKenna, 2020) emphasize the importance of equity-focused adaptations, including “identifying and utilizing student strengths” when assigning tasks and job duties (McKenna, 2020, p. 79).

Ultimately, extending inclusive pedagogy beyond the classroom aligns student employment with the academic library’s educational mission of contributing to and advancing student success. If hiring, training, and professional development are informed by UDL and TILT, academic library student employee programs not only sustain essential library operations, but also cultivate transferable skills, promote belonging, and advance institutional commitments to equity. When academic library supervisors create space for a diverse workforce in their training and onboarding processes, “the combination of teaching and student inquiry activities will motivate students’ active learning and develop their employability” (Li et al., 2020, p. 8-9). This literature review presents foundational knowledge on the topic of inclusive pedagogies, which will serve as a framework for the practices and recommendations discussed in the institutional narratives below.

Student Workers at Kennesaw State University
Student Supervisor: Kristina Clement, Assistant Director of Academic Engagement and Instruction and Instruction Coordinator

Kennesaw State University (KSU) is a public, R2 (high-research activity), institution in the University System of Georgia enrolling 47,845 students in the 2024-2025 academic year. The KSU Libraries serve two campuses through two library locations. Historically, student workers at the KSU Libraries were centralized in Access Services, where they staffed service desks and performed stacks maintenance under a single manager at each campus. Following a library-wide reorganization in 2023, units beyond Access Services were authorized to hire their own student workers. As a result, the Academic Engagement and Instruction (AEI) unit of the KSU Libraries hired its first two student workers for the 2024-2025 academic year. Because AEI had never employed student workers, no hiring and onboarding precedent or training materials existed for the administrative and instructional-support tasks we wanted the student workers to do in our unit. When we first hired our student workers, they reported to me, Kristina Clement, the Assistant Director of Academic Engagement and Instruction for the Collegiate Librarians and Instruction Coordinator. This was my first experience supervising student workers, and since I could not use the training materials for Access Services, I approached the challenge as an instructor, drawing on UDL and TILT to design end-to-end hiring, onboarding, and training processes.

Designing AEI’s Student Worker Program with UDL and TILT

When the AEI unit hired its first student workers, we faced a blank slate: no inherited workflows, no role descriptions tailored to our administrative and instructional-support context, and no unit-specific training materials. Rather than retrofit Access Services’ materials, I approached student employment as a learning environment in its own right. Treating work as structured learning guided me to design for learner variability with UDL and to make expectations and tacit norms explicit through TILT. The students I had hired disclosed to me of their own accord that they were each first-generation students, and therefore, my aim was twofold: reduce hidden knowledge barriers that often disadvantage first-generation students and build a day-to-day supervisory routine that normalized help-seeking and iterative growth.

Before I could think about onboarding and training, I had to figure out how to structure the work that my new student employees would do and how they would access it because their positions would be fairly autonomous. I anchored the program in a dedicated Microsoft Teams channel (“Student Worker” channel) that functioned as a landing page for tasks, documents, and communication. Granting students access to the broader AEI Team was initially a point of hesitation for me, as I worried about students encountering information overload and the cognitive load of navigating internal conversations. In practice, though, the broader access proved beneficial. Exposure to unit files and discussion threads supplied additional context for tasks, accelerated students’ sense of where their work fit within the AEI mission, and developed a workplace fluency with Teams, an institutional tool that many students struggle to use effectively.

Task management in the Student Worker channel became the primary application of TILT. I used the Planner app within Teams to structure work as a sequence of transparent commitments. Each task was framed around three questions: Why does this matter (purpose)? What exactly should I do (task)? How will my work be judged or how will I get feedback (criteria)? This was less about creating excess documentation and more about changing the supervisory conversation with the student workers. Tasks were written with brief, plain-language rationales that connected the task to the unit goals, and to students’ developing skills. The checklist feature of Planner tasks was used to provide step-by-step instructions of how to complete the task, and I attached examples when possible to lower the barrier to first attempts. The comments feature in Planner enabled real-time, in-context feedback that students workers could revisit when they repeated similar work. Both student workers could view the others’ tasks in Planner and the ability to shift tasks between students as needed supported peer learning and smooth task handoffs during peak academic weeks. Though treating work as structured learning was based in TILT, the ethos of this method is grounded in UDL as it is designed for learner variability. Student workers are provided with several ways to engage with their tasks and encouraged to suggest an alternative if the method they prefer is not present.

Future Focused Onboarding With UDL

With my first student workers, most of my effort went into building their workspace and work processes; true onboarding had to wait. With my next group of student worker hires, I want to shift from infrastructure building to a UDL-led onboarding sequence that treats student employment as structured learning from day one. The plan is still in development but is looking to include the following structures:

• Multiple means of engagement: choice along low-stakes starter tasks with some aligned to student interests; worksheets designed to help student workers engage with the KSU Libraries’ website and learn about key services; and choice about whether to complete onboarding tasks digitally or by hand.
• Multiple means of representation: a compact “Start Here” hub in the Student Worker teams channel; micro-guides with screenshots for recurring tasks; video walkthroughs for recurring tasks; and a plain-language glossary for academic library and AEI-specific terminology.
• Multiple means of action and expression: offer two to three acceptable ways to demonstrate competence, such as a checklist combined with an artifact, 60-90 second screen captures of the student worker completing a task, and short written or verbal reflections.

The intent is for the new onboarding sequence to take place over two to three weeks where student workers move from the essentials to the basics to independent work paired with peer shadowing and guided practice. I also plan to do five-minute shift previews at the beginning of each student worker’s shift, a mid-shift check, and a five-minute reflection and feedback at the end of each student worker’s shift during onboarding as needed. My hope is that the regular checks will normalize help-seeking and build metacognitive habits without increasing paperwork bloat.

Benefits, Challenges, and Next Steps

The current work structure has yielded clear benefits including greater clarity and confidence for my first-generation student workers, earlier integration into AEI’s workflows, visible evidence of transferable skills, and more efficient supervisory time through upfront design. At the same time, there are challenges that require ongoing calibration: avoiding over-specification that constrains creativity and initiative; managing cognitive load in a resource-rich workspace; navigating the Teams/Planner learning curve; balancing front-loaded supervisor efforts; and remembering that student workers are students first—the work they do for us has to come lower on their priority list. My hope is that the next iteration of hiring and onboarding will address some of these challenges, but overall pairing UDL’s anticipatory design with TILT’s explicit communication is turning student employment in AEI into a deliberate learning space that advances the unit’s operations while strengthening student belonging, confidence, and workplace preparedness through equitable design.

Student Workers at Columbus State University
Student Supervisor: Erin Tan, Head of Access Services

Columbus State University (CSU) is a public, four-year state university in the University System of Georgia, enrolling 7,937 students in the 2024-2025 academic year. CSU has a total of three libraries on its two campuses, all of which are operated by faculty, staff, and student assistants. The Simon Schwob Memorial Library, also known as the Main Library, is open until 12:30 a.m. five days of the week, and thus staffing the Service Desk relies heavily on student assistants’ time. The Main Library employs between 4-6 student assistants a semester. Student assistants at the Main Library Service Desk are directly supervised by me, Erin Tan, the Head of Access Services, and indirectly supervised by the Access Services staff and librarians that work at the Service Desk alongside them.

Hiring and Onboarding

Student assistant library jobs are highly popular, so the hiring committee has to sort through numerous applications to find qualified candidates. Quite often the applicants are freshmen who have never had a job and may have limited library experience. While personal questions about neurodivergence and first-generation status are not asked during the application and interview process, conversations and interactions in the first few months of onboarding make it clear that many student assistants fall into these categories and require additional and new strategies to make expectations clear, build confidence, and make training accessible to their learning styles.

Library student assistants are expected to perform circulation and basic reference duties at the Service Desk. Student assistants also fulfill a majority of the stacks maintenance work, which includes shelving, dusting, straightening, and shelf-reading their assigned sections. When training new student assistants, Access Services staff provides them with a folder of information to supplement the in-person training. The folder includes procedures, policies, and an orientation outline. The in-person training involves shadowing of staff members and hands-on practice of the typical desk duties. Unlike KSU, we did not start onboarding and training procedures from scratch. As a new manager, I have relied on onboarding practices that were already in place in order to observe their effectiveness. Historically, new student assistants are trained by one or two members of the Access Services team, depending on the time and day of the students’ shifts. Occasionally there are discrepancies in the training style and information shared, depending on the staff member who is providing the training.

As their direct supervisor, I also try to schedule time to meet with each student individually to ask them about any gaps in their knowledge or answer any pressing questions. By implementing an open door policy, as well as initiating one-on-one meetings, I am able to provide a supportive environment in which they are comfortable asking questions without fear of judgment. However, I have found it hard to meet with my student assistants due to our schedules and shifts not overlapping. Many of my students work primarily during evenings and weekends when I am not scheduled to work. Due to these discrepancies in training, scheduling, and sometimes ineffective models of training, the Access Services team has been working to provide more consistent and comprehensive training to our student assistants.

Making Changes

This semester, the Main Library planned and implemented a Student Refresher for its student assistants in order to provide them with a more focused training for the services they provide daily. This Refresher included role-play scenarios to showcase customer service best practices, as well as behavior to avoid at the desk. However, these scenarios were presented by library staff and not by the students. In order for students to learn from these real-world examples, it would be more beneficial to have the students participate in the skits. We also interspersed some true-or-false quizzes in the Refresher to increase engagement and create an assessment of students’ learning. At the end of the Refresher, we gave students an opportunity to provide feedback and ask for clarification about issues or duties that they experience on the job. This proved to be valuable, because we found that student assistants did not know how to complete a particular task, and we were able to provide on-the-spot training to remedy the situation.

Additionally, the onboarding and training of student assistants could greatly benefit from the UDL principles. The folder of printed information that is provided to new student assistants contains an abundance of text. In the future, I would like to include more visuals, such as screenshots of the system that we use for circulation, as well as photos and videos that provide examples for how books should be shelved and maintained. Additionally, I’d like to make this information available through digital means, such as a LibGuide or other platform in which our students can easily find. Many students do not reference the folder after their first few months on the job and it is much easier to search through a digital guide to find answers when students are already logged into a computer for their shift at the desk.

Benefits, Challenges, and Next Steps

I believe that using TILT, specifically in the application of sharing the purpose behind the library tasks, will help my student assistants make the connection between the services they are providing as library employee and the services that they receive or utilize as students. Being transparent about the work will also help students feel more connected and included; this fosters collegiality and prepares students for the workforce. Using UDL methods ensures that all of my student assistants can process and retain the information needed for their job in the manner that works best for their learning style.

Utilizing UDL and TILT in the training of library student assistants requires that all employees who are involved in the training process become familiar with these pedagogies. These inclusive pedagogies will challenge the trainers to try new tactics and think creatively about how to explain library concepts, such as Library of Congress classification, catalogs, and databases. Not only does simplifying library and academia jargon enable student assistants to feel prepared for their job, but it can be a valuable experience for seasoned library staff to interact with the campus community in a new way.

The next steps involve a multitude of time, energy, and manpower. Ideally, I would like to have the Access Services department reorganized to have a specific employee whose only job is to hire, onboard, and train student assistants at all three of our locations. Having a designated employee in this role would ensure that more time and effort is spent in researching and implementing effective instructional pedagogies, and thus developing and maintaining engaged and productive student assistants.

A Pedagogical Shift

The literature reviewed demonstrates that student employment in academic libraries functions as both an operational necessity and a pedagogical opportunity as libraries depend on student assistants to sustain public service hours and workflow continuity. Despite the recognized importance of student workers in academic libraries, the onboarding and training of these workers may replicate classroom inequities through inconsistent instruction, unspoken expectations, and limited accommodations. Inclusive pedagogies such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TILT) offer a framework for addressing these barriers by treating student employment in the academic library as a structured learning environment rather than solely a transactional workplace.

The cases of CSU and KSU exemplify two stages of this pedagogical shift. At CSU, student employment in Access Services has long relied on traditional, print-based training models and shadowing by staff members, leading to uneven learning experiences depending on who conducts training. The introduction of an intentional refresher session for student workers demonstrates progress toward a more consistent and interactive approach, but the initiative remains largely staff-led and text-dependent. The next step for CSU is to reframe training materials through UDL principles by providing multiple means of representation such as visuals, video walkthroughs, and accessible digital platforms, and to integrate TILT strategies by clarifying the purpose, task, and criteria of each job function. Doing so would not only standardize learning outcomes but also support first-generation and neurodivergent students who benefit from explicit communication of expectations and multimodal learning opportunities.

KSU’s case illustrates a more deliberate application of inclusive pedagogy to student employment. Beginning with no precedent for student worker roles, AEI designed onboarding from a clean slate, explicitly embedding UDL and TILT into many aspects of the program. Using Microsoft Teams as a digital workspace, tasks were framed with transparent rationales and structured for multiple forms of engagement, feedback, and reflection. This intentional design reduced hidden knowledge barriers and cultivated metacognitive awareness of workplace learning. The iterative feedback process and multiple modalities for demonstrating competence align with UDL’s three core principles: providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression (CAST, 2018). The results mirror findings in higher education research showing that transparency in task design increases academic confidence, belonging, and skill transferability for underserved learners (Winkelmes et al., 2016; Smith, 2025).

However, across both institutions, the development and intent to develop inclusive training models highlight the importance of shifting supervisory mindsets from task delegation to instructional design. The CSU case emphasizes the challenge of retrofitting long-standing training practices, while the KSU case demonstrates the potential of beginning with a pedagogical foundation. Together, they illustrate that inclusive hiring, onboarding, and training benefits not only student workers by improving clarity, confidence, and accessibility but also supervisors who create more efficient workflows and greater continuity of service. Applying UDL and TILT to student employment situates libraries as sites of equitable experiential learning, reinforcing their dual mission to educate and serve. As academic libraries continue to reimagine student labor through inclusive frameworks, these case studies provide complementary perspectives: one of adaptation and one of innovation, both moving toward a model of student employment that is intentionally designed, transparently communicated, and universally accessible.

Recommendations for Practice

To operationalize inclusive onboarding, when possible, academic libraries should adopt a design-first, rather than retrofit, approach to student hiring, onboarding, and training. Whether developing new positions or revising existing procedures, supervisors can begin by mapping job responsibilities to the UDL and TILT frameworks. For example, tasks can be rewritten to include the purpose (why the task matters to the library’s mission), task steps (how to perform it), and criteria (how success will be evaluated). This scaffolding clarifies expectations for first-generation and neurodivergent students while improving consistency across supervisors. Pairing this written transparency with multiple formats, such as visual job aids, short instructional videos, and peer-to-peer demonstrations, ensures accessibility for students with diverse learning preferences. Table 2 outlines options for applying UDL and TILT to student worker contexts.

Table 2: Applying UDL and TILT to student worker contexts

Student Worker Context	UDL Lens (Design)	TILT Lens (Communication)
Hiring and onboarding	Offer varied ways to learn about the job and the workplace.	Clearly state what the role does and what success looks like.
Daily tasks and responsibilities	Provide options for how students complete and show work.	Spell out steps for tasks and provide quality criteria for key tasks.
Feedback and growth	Use different formats for reflection and feedback.	Explain why feedback is given and how to improve.

Libraries should also create structured, yet flexible, training ecosystems. A hybrid model that combines asynchronous digital modules with in-person guided practice accommodates students’ varying schedules and cognitive needs. Digital platforms such as LibGuides, learning management systems, or collaborative tools like Microsoft Teams can serve as “living manuals,” updated each semester to include new workflows, screenshots, and short video walk-throughs. Integrating quick knowledge checks or reflection prompts within these modules encourages active learning and helps supervisors identify areas where additional support is needed. Equally important is the professional development of library staff who design and deliver training for student workers. Institutions can build micro-credential or certificate programs in inclusive supervision that introduce staff to UDL, TILT, and neurodiversity-affirming practices. Embedding these expectations in annual performance reviews or onboarding checklists signals that accessibility and teaching effectiveness are institutional priorities, not optional enhancements. Creating cross-departmental learning communities allows supervisors to share challenges and successful strategies, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

Finally, based on our experience and the two cases, academic libraries should evaluate and celebrate student learning outcomes alongside operational efficiency. Short reflective surveys or focus groups with student assistants can provide feedback on what helped them learn most effectively, while recognition programs for skill growth could reinforce motivation and retention. These assessments close the loop between design, implementation, and impact, ensuring that student employment remains a high-impact practice grounded in equity and learning.

Future Vision

As academic libraries continue to balance their dual missions of access and education, the inclusive training of student employees represents both a practical and philosophical opportunity. Embedding UDL and TILT into onboarding and supervision transforms the student worker experience from routine employment into applied learning that cultivates agency, empathy, and professional readiness. The case studies at CSU and KSU demonstrate that when academic libraries treat student employment as pedagogy, they become laboratories for inclusion and spaces where emerging professionals learn not only how to serve but also how to lead. Looking ahead, we believe the most successful library workplaces will be those that view every student employment training document, workflow, and supervisory interaction as a form of instruction. By designing for transparency and variability from the start, academic libraries can model the equity-minded learning environments that higher education and its students most urgently need.

References

Accardo, A. L., Bomgardner, E. M., Rubinstein, M. B., & Woodruff, J. (2024). Valuing neurodiversity on campus: Perspectives and priorities of neurodivergent students, faculty, and professional staff. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000571

Akella, D. (2022). A foucauldian perspective on using the transparency framework in learning and teaching (TILT): In D. Akella, L. Paudel, N. Wickramage, M. Rogers, & A. Gibson (Eds.), Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (pp. 296–316). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9549-7.ch014

Bastone, Z., & Clement, K. (2022). Serving everyone or serving no one? Examining the faux-equity of the one-shot. College & Research Libraries, 83(5), 780. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.5.780

Becker-Redd, K., Lee, K., & Skelton, C. (2018). Training student workers for cross-departmental success in an academic library: A new model. Journal of Library Administration, 58(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2017.1412711

Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. (2014). Universal Design for instruction and learning: A pilot study of faculty instructional methods and attitudes related to students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education International, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v24i1.7710

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

Couture, J., Bretón, J., Dommermuth, E., Floersch, N., Ilett, D., Nowak, K., Roberts, L., & Watson, R. (2021). “We’re gonna figure this out”: First-generation students and academic libraries. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 21(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2021.0009

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum.

Fornauf, B. S., & Erickson, J. D. (2020). Toward an inclusive pedagogy through Universal Design for Learning in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 183–199. https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AHEAD/38b602f4-ec53-451c-9be0-5c0bf5d27c0a/UploadedImages/JPED/JPED_Vol_33/33_issue_2/JPED_33_2_.pdf

Izzo, M. V. (2012). Universal Design for Learning: Enhancing achievement of students with disabilities. Procedia Computer Science, 14, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.039

Jacobs, A. (2023). Can TILT be used to teach study tactics? A case study in a biology classroom. Perspectives In Learning, 20(1). https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/pil/vol20/iss1/7

Knoff, M., & Hobscheid, M. (2021). Enacting service policies through pedagogy to create a more inclusive student experience. Public Services Quarterly, 17(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2020.1856017

Li, K., Peng, M. Y.-P., Du, Z., Li, J., Yen, K.-T., & Yu, T. (2020). Do specific pedagogies and problem-based teaching improve student employability? A cross-sectional survey of college students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01099

Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction: Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to Universal Design. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024961

Lombardi, A., Murray, C., & Dallas, B. (2013). University faculty attitudes toward disability and inclusive instruction: Comparing two institutions. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3), 221–232. https://www.ahead-archive.org/uploads/publications/JPED/jped26_3/JPED26_3_Full%20Document.pdf

Mcguire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Universal Design and its applications in educational environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270030501

McKenna, J. (2020). So many students, so little time: Practical student worker training in an academic library. Journal of Access Services, 17(2), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2020.1718505

Schreiber, J. (2017). Universal Design for Learning: A student-centered curriculum perspective. Curriculum and Teaching, 32(2), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/32.2.06

Smith, E. (2025). An examination of universal design for learning and its impact potential on support staff practices within higher education. https://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/9770

Stentiford, L., & Koutsouris, G. (2021). What are inclusive pedagogies in higher education? A systematic scoping review. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2245–2261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1716322

Sterling, L. R. (2015). Books not burgers: Six highly effective ways to motivate and retain library student employees. Journal of Access Services, 12(3–4), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2015.1098544

Winkelmes, M.-A., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., &
Weavil, K. H. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students’ success. Peer Review, 18(1/2), 31–36. https://dgmg81phhvh63.cloudfront.net/content/user-photos/Publications/Archives/Peer-Review/PR_WISP16_Vol18No1-2.pdf

Winkelmes, M. A. (2023). Introduction to transparency in learning and teaching. Perspectives In Learning, 20(1). https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/pil/vol20/iss1/2