Promoting inclusive practices with emerging technologies in higher education: Faculty professional development through blended-learning

Journal Pre-proof Promoting inclusive practices with emerging technologies in higher education: Faculty professional development through blended-learning Anabel Moriña, Víctor H. Perera PII: S1096-7516(25)00028-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101019 Reference: INTHIG 101019 To appear in: The Internet and Higher Education Received date: 20 November 2023 Revised date: 7 May 2025 Accepted date: 28 May 2025 Please cite this article as: A. Moriña and V.H. Perera, Promoting inclusive practices with emerging technologies in higher education: Faculty professional development through blended-learning, The Internet and Higher Education (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.iheduc.2025.101019 This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2025 Published by Elsevier Inc. Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Promoting Inclusive Practices with Emerging Technologies in Higher Education: Faculty Professional Development through Blended-Learning Anabel Moriña Faculty of Education Universidad de Sevilla C/ Pirotecnia, s/n (41013) Sevilla – España [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-0852-7523 Víctor H. Perera Faculty of Education Universidad de Sevilla C/ Pirotecnia, s/n (41013) Sevilla – España [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-3870-9475 Funding This work was supported by Andalusian Regional Government and FEDER Funds (Consejería de Economía, Conocimiento, Empresas y Universidad) [Grant number US1381423]. Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Promoting Inclusive Practices with Emerging Technologies in Higher Education: Faculty Professional Development through Blended-Learning Abstract University institutions face the challenge of training faculty in inclusive digital skills to provide quality education for all. This paper presents a study that designed, developed, and evaluated a blended-learning training programme for faculty in Spain, focusing on emerging technologies from an inclusive perspective. A qualitative methodology was employed, incorporating a case study approach with semi-structured interviews conducted with faculty and focus groups with students. The study encompassed a diagnostic evaluation of faculty training needs and an evaluation of the programme’s implementation, outcomes and impact. The results revealed that inclusive practices with technologies benefit the faculty and students involved and provide a replicable model for other universities. This study underlines the importance of online training in professional development, as it allows for essential learning opportunities in today's educational context. Keywords: Higher Education; faculty professional development; training; blended learning; emerging technologies; inclusive education Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof 1. Introduction Inclusive education, which advocates learning and participation for all students without exceptions, represents a challenge for higher education (HE) worldwide (UNESCO, 2021). Several studies have highlighted the essential role of faculty members in this context, underlining the need to provide professional development (PD) opportunities through training programmes (Roberts et al., 2011). The experiences of students with disabilities, as well as the challenges posed by innovative pedagogical approaches and, especially, the pandemic, have highlighted the importance of technologies in making learning environments inclusive (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2022; Reyes et al., 2022). Technology integration in HE requires an urgent review of teaching methods to ensure equity in the access and participation for learners, regardless of their skills or abilities. In the current HE context, emerging technologies such as adaptive and mobile learning are transforming teaching methodologies, according to reports such as the EDUCAUSE Horizon Report (Alexander et al., 2019). These technologies have not only changed how faculty members approach the educational process but have also led to an increased preference for flexible and online learning modalities, especially among students (Pelletier et al., 2023). This transformation redefines the educational experience, combines technology with inclusive principles, and diversifies the university educational landscape. Despite the importance of technology in educational inclusion, studies reveal that many faculty members are not adequately prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities or to use inclusive technology resources (Moriña & Carballo, 2017). Implementing specific training plans that empower faculty to acquire knowledge and develop teaching practices using emerging and inclusive technologies (Traxler, 2016; Park et al., 2017). Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof To meet this need, this article presents the results of a study that designed, developed, and evaluated a b-learning training programme for faculty members. This programme focused on using emerging technologies from an inclusive perspective, incorporating practical aspects that would effectively apply this knowledge in the university environment. 2. Literature review 2.1. Moving toward inclusive education for the attainment of quality education by and for all Inclusive education is a legal and ethical responsibility based on diversity, equity, and social justice (Koutsouris et al., 2022). It is now undeniable that all educational institutions must ensure quality education for all, providing accessible and relevant learning for all students (UNESCO, 2021). Embracing the principles of inclusion entails appreciating diversity in university settings, recognising that there are diverse ways of learning and that all students are valuable, and proposing actions that increase participation and authentic learning (Moriña, 2022). In inclusive settings, student-centred pedagogical approaches and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are highly effective in promoting academic success (Hitch et al., 2016). Student-centred approaches refer to teaching practices that place the student at the heart of the educational process, acknowledging their diversity and fostering autonomy. These practices are closely linked to inclusive education, as they allow for adapting methodologies and resources to meet the individual needs of all students, particularly those with disabilities. Similarly, learning-centred approaches focus on developing students' competencies and skills, emphasising how they learn rather than just what they learn. This perspective is essential for inclusion, as it facilitates the constant evaluation of student Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof progress and the adjustment of teaching strategies to their unique learning styles and paces (Altay, 2014). However, advancing toward an inclusive university is no easy task, as it faces challenges not recognised in previous decades (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2022). A clear example is the dizzying technological progress we are experiencing, intensified by the training needs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic (Lee et al., 2022). This technological advance has highlighted the importance of faculty members keeping up to date and engaging in continuous learning (Bong & Chen, 2021). Teaching approaches have also changed, with learner-centred approaches being now recommended. Additionally, the increasing presence of traditionally underrepresented groups in HE, such as persons with disabilities, requires teaching processes to be adjusted to this reality (Koutsouris et al., 2022). All this implies the need to rethink the teaching role and the convenience of lifelong learning for teachers in line with this new scenario. In terms of the teaching role, teaching at university today must mean not only being able to master the content of a subject but also knowing how to teach, adapting to the needs of the students, and using different didactic resources, including technology (Reyes et al., 2022). However, it is not enough to use technological resources; it is equally essential that these are designed with inclusion and accessibility in mind so that all students can benefit from their use (Sánchez-Díaz et al., 2022; Stambekova et al., 2020; Williams van Rooij & Zirkle, 2016). In this sense, adequate faculty training becomes a critical factor in fostering inclusive practices that positively impact the learning process of all students. In this context, the universal design of learning (UDL) is presented as a powerful approach to eliminating barriers to learning. It favours implementing inclusive education in Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof the university and promotes a learning environment that respects and values diversity, without exception (CAST, 2024; Del'Anna et al., 2024). 2.2. Emerging technologies to promote inclusive teaching practices HE is undergoing a profound transformation driven by the increasing adoption of emerging technologies. These technologies have the potential not only to bridge the digital divide, but also to provide equitable access to learning activities tailored to students' diverse learning styles, preferences, and needs (Czerkawski, 2013; Martin et al., 2020). In this context, faculty members have a significant role to play, as their pedagogical approaches and willingness to adapt to these technologies are key determinants in promoting inclusive classroom practices (Looi et al., 2014). Within this educational transformation driven by emerging technologies, mobile apps have emerged as essential tools that facilitate the teaching-learning process for students with disabilities, while supporting faculty members and promoting inclusive education (Pegalajar-Palomino, 2022). These applications not only personalise learning and encourage active participation in the classroom, as previous research has shown (Wang et al., 2009), but also optimise group learning dynamics (Ault & Horn, 2018), driving innovative pedagogical approaches such as gamification, flipped learning and virtual reality (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Lampropoulos et al., 2022; Nguwi, 2023). These technological advances have transformed student-content interaction and have significantly improved motivation, engagement, and academic performance (Castellano-Beltrán et al., 2025; Criollo et al., 2024; Talan, 2020). In addition to mobile applications, the integration of technologies such as gamification, augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR) offers significant opportunities for inclusive education. Gamification incorporates game-like elements into learning Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof environments, fostering student engagement and motivation. This approach mainly benefits students with attention difficulties or disabilities, providing structured, interactive, and enjoyable activities that encourage participation (Talan, 2020). On the other hand, AR and VR technologies create immersive learning experiences that can enhance students' comprehension of complex concepts. These tools make educational content more accessible and provide tailored support, which is especially valuable in inclusive settings where students may require alternative methods of engagement and understanding (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021). Implementing these technologies highlights the importance of comprehensive faculty training in effectively integrating these tools into their teaching practices. This includes acquiring technical proficiency and designing inclusive pedagogical strategies that leverage the strengths of gamification, AR, and VR to foster equitable learning opportunities for all students (Bas & Sarıgöz, 2018). 2.3. Faculty PD and b-learning training to improve teaching practices Continuous improvement of specific skills and knowledge has become imperative. This improvement is achieved through learning activities and PD, such as participating in courses, workshops, conferences, mentoring, or research (Desimone, 2009). Moriña (2022) stresses that faculty training is fundamental to promoting inclusive practices, where faculty members who adopt learner-centred approaches and trust in the abilities of all their students create an inclusive learning environment from the outset. In faculty PD, especially in the context of inclusive education, the importance of blearning, which combines face-to-face and online modalities, is recognised (Shu & Gu, 2018). Research underlines that effective technology integration enhances participation and fosters an inclusive learning environment (Lázaro & Duart, 2023). However, a gap persists in the Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof scientific literature regarding the evaluation of the impact of this combination. There are no published studies that simultaneously address emerging technologies and inclusion, as well as the evaluation of the development of training in this area and its impact. Nevertheless, previous research focuses on faculty training on issues related to disability, inclusive education, and UDL (Hockings et al., 2012; Moriña & Carballo, 2017). Other studies have addressed accessible distance education and assistive technology, such as the work of Park et al. (2017). Other studies have explored faculty training in technological skills (E.g. Baéz et al., 2019; Kluge et al., 2023). On the other hand, it has been observed that most b-learning PD programmes do not provide ongoing support or follow-up evaluations for faculty members, thus highlighting the need for more in-depth research on PD in the context of blended learning (Huang et., 2017). Regarding the type of training, its effectiveness on teaching practices is significantly influenced by several factors, including the duration and format of educational programmes. Hitch et al. (2016) have questioned the effectiveness of university in-service training, arguing that short, sporadic initiatives make implementing changes in cultures and practices difficult. This approach highlights the need for more holistic training strategies. The literature supports the variety of training formats valued by faculty, from face-to-face workshops to extended seminars and online courses (Burgstahler & Doe, 2006). This variety in training methods offers flexibility to faculty members and enriches their learning experience, allowing them to tailor training to their individual needs and specific educational contexts (Wynants & Dennis, 2018). Finally, diversity in training programmes is crucial to meet faculty's individual needs (Gelbar et al., 2015). Online and self-guided training, which allows for flexible faculty participation (Janahi et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2010), is complemented by constructivist and Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof procedurally, and finally. The interviews were structured around open-ended questions that sought to explore their experiences in the training program and their application of emerging technologies in teaching. The initial interview, conducted before initiating the training, focused on the faculty's training needs. Some of the questions included: Why are you interested in taking this training? What training needs do you have for educational technology and inclusive education? What knowledge do you have of emerging educational technology? Do you think these technologies/methodologies facilitate inclusive education? The development interview, conducted halfway through the training, focused on assessing the implementation of the training programme and identifying possible areas for improvement prior to its conclusion. The final interview aimed to evaluate the programme's outcomes regarding student learning, inclusion, and faculty professional development. Questions included: What were the advantages of developing the course in a blended modality? What were the disadvantages? What positive aspects would you highlight from the implementation of this practice? Why? Do you believe that with the training you receive, you will enhance the learning of your students? How has your approach to inclusive teaching shifted after participating in the programme? In addition, to evaluate the results of this training, focus groups were conducted with the students of all participants, except for P8, who chose not to participate in this phase of the study. Focus groups with students were designed to gain deeper insight into their learning experiences. The questions that guided this focus group were: What did you like the most from this experience? Why? Do you think the experience with technology is designed for the learning and participation of all students, including those with disabilities? Why? Do you consider that every student can access the material used by your faculty member? Why? Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Has your perception of your faculty changed? How? Has your relationship with your faculty changed? Why? The 50 students participating in the 10 focus groups were asked to participate voluntarily. Two students with disabilities participated in the focus groups: one with autism and dyslexia in the P2 group, and one with attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the P9 group. Table 4 presents each data collection technique and its corresponding abbreviation, which are used throughout the results section to identify the source of each quotation. Table 4. Instruments and abbreviations Faculty Participant Initial Interview Process Interview Final Interview Student Focus Group P1 IIP1 PIP1 FIP1 FGP1 (8 students) P2 IIP2 PIP2 FIP2 FGP2 (6 students) P3 IIP3 PIP3 FIP3 FGP3 (3 students) P4 IIP4 PIP4 FIP4 FGP4 (5 students) P5 IIP5 PIP5 FIP5 FGP5 (6 students) P6 IIP6 PIP6 FIP6 FGP6 (6 students) P7 IIP7 PIP7 FIP7 FGP7 (3 students) P8 IIP8 PIP8 FIP8 Did not participate P9 IIP9 PIP9 FIP9 FGP9 (6 students) P10 IIP10 PIP10 FIP10 FGP10 (4 students) Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof P11 IIP11 PIP11 FIP11 FGP11 (3 students) Key: IIP: Initial Interview – Pre-Implementation Phase (Faculty Member); PIP: Process Interview – During Implementation (Faculty Member); FIP: Final Interview – Post-Implementation Phase (Faculty Member); FGP: Focus Group – Post-Implementation (Students) 3.5. Data analysis Data analysis was carried out following Miles and Huberman (1994). Firstly, all interviews and focus groups were transcribed. Once the participants returned and reviewed all the information, the transcripts were read to make sense of the data. The research team created an inductive system of categories and codes from this reading, which emerged directly from the data. This analysis was carried out progressively. The main categories and codes were identified in the initial phase, and in subsequent analyses, they were completed with new specific codes (see Table 5). All information was analysed by two researchers, thus ensuring triangulation of the data. The MAXQDA software was used to facilitate the handling of the large amount of data generated by this study. To ensure reliability in the coding process, both researchers jointly designed the system of categories and codes and analysed all the information. The transcripts were initially coded, and the inter-coder reliability index was calculated using Cohen's Kappa coefficient to evaluate the level of agreement between the coders. The analysis yielded a Kappa coefficient of 0.81, indicating a high level of agreement. In cases where discrepancies arose during the coding process, the researchers convened to discuss the differences and reach a consensus. Table 5 Category and code system Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Category Code Description 1. Needs 1.1 Training needs Issues in which the participants felt they needed to improve their training on emerging technologies and inclusive education. 2. Training modality 2.1 Favourable aspects of b-learning Advantages of developing the training programme in a b-learning mode. 2.2 Aspects for improvement in blearning modality Aspects for improvement in the development of the programme in a b-learning mode. 2.3 Virtual platform Valuation of the functioning and structure of the virtual platform used in the training programme. 3. Implementation (faculty perspective) 3.1 Impact on students Impact of the experience on student learning. 3.2 Inclusive education Opinion on whether the practice has improved the learning and participation of all students, including those with disabilities. 3.3 Professional Development Most significant content and skills acquired by faculty through the training programme. 4. Implementation (student perspective) 4.1. Impact on students Impact of the experience on student learning. 4.2. Inclusive education Opinion on whether the practice has improved the learning and participation of all students, including those with disabilities. 3.6. Ethical issues in research Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof The participants provided signed an informed consent form, which guaranteed the confidentiality and anonymity of their data, and were given the option to withdraw from the study at any time. To preserve the identity of the participants, each participant was assigned a label beginning with the initial P, followed by a number, thus identifying the 11 faculty members involved in the study. The same was done for their students, assigning them a code so that they could not be identified. In addition, the study received ethical approval from the funding body of the research project. 4. Findings 4.1. Evaluation of the needs of training on emerging educational technologies and inclusion and design of the training programme This study began by exploring faculty training needs in emerging technologies and inclusion. The voices and experiences shared by the participants revealed critical areas that needed attention and development to improve the quality of inclusive and technologically advanced education. One of the concerns highlighted by the faculty members was the need to make technologies accessible to all students, regardless of their abilities. Assessing the accessibility of digital platforms and applications was identified as urgent, showing a lack of specific tools to address various disabilities. In response, the programme developed the module "Designing Accessible Learning Materials", which provided techniques for creating educational materials related to UDL principles, thus ensuring the full participation of all learners. Another concern was the need for more knowledge and use of advanced technological tools. The faculty members expressed a need for more in-depth training beyond basic applications. The lack of experience with complex tools, such as simulation Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof software and interactive programming platforms, limited their ability to diversify teaching methods and adapt educational content to the specific needs of individual learners. One of the participants expressed: "I need to develop my technological competence in order to promote interaction with students and encourage my students to understand that, firstly, diversity affects all students and, secondly, considering educational inclusion is part of the faculty’s job" (IIP7). To address this demand, specialised modules such as Mobile Applications for Inclusive Learning and Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality for Educational Inclusion in the Classroom were introduced, enabling faculty members to acquire advanced skills in emerging technologies. Another point of interest was the effective integration of technology and inclusion. The faculty recognised the urgency of developing technological competencies that would encourage interaction in the classroom and appreciated the importance of ensuring that students understood that inclusion was essential to the educational process. The programme responded to this need by focusing on the harmonious integration of technology and inclusion. Modules such as Inclusive Practices with Mobile Learning and Gamification as an Inclusive Methodological Strategy in the Classroom guided how to leverage technologies to create inclusive and participatory educational experiences. Finally, the urgent need for practical and applied training in the field of emerging technologies and inclusion was a theme highlighted by the faculty members. This demand focused on concrete learning experiences and practical examples that would enable them to effectively understand the theoretical concepts and how to implement technologies with an inclusive approach in their classrooms. Responding to this need, the programme was Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof structured to specifically offer practical opportunities that equip faculty with the necessary skills to address current challenges in inclusive education and the effective integration of technology in the classroom. 4.2. Development of the training programme and evaluation of its implementation In its online modality, the organisational structure of the platform was fundamental to effectively guide the participants through the modules and assigned tasks, encouraging active participation and collaborative learning. The Moodle programme environment was designed to be intuitive and accessible. At the beginning of the programme, the faculty members received a didactic guide that clearly stated the objectives and expectations of the programme. In addition, a detailed tutorial on using the Moodle platform ensured that all participants were familiar with its functions and features, promoting a seamless learning environment. The eight content modules were presented as SCORM packages, allowing faculty members to access them interactively and participatorily. Additional resources were provided in PDF and other formats for further study. The programme content was structured in two training phases, each focused on the practical application of technologies and pedagogical strategies. The first phase introduced theories, tools, guidelines, and support related to emerging technologies and inclusive education, while the second phase focused on inclusive classroom practices using these technologies. Throughout the programme, participants were asked to complete two practical tasks. For the first task, carried out at the end of the first training phase, they were required to redesign and implement an activity in their classrooms that integrated mobile applications from both pedagogical and inclusive perspectives. This task was formatively assessed based Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof on its applicability, creativity, and impact on student learning, using both peer feedback and predefined criteria established by the teaching team. For the second task, the faculty members had to plan and develop a new teaching practice, choosing among gamified experiences, flipped learning, augmented reality applications, or virtual assistants to be implemented in their classrooms. Participants chose a specific approach and used mobile applications and web tools to create inclusive pedagogical experiences. The evaluation focused on the effectiveness of design, content, and student inclusion. Both teaching practices—the pilot implementations of the redesigned learning activities developed during each task—required participants to record key moments in their implementation, accompanied by images and concise explanations. These records provided visual evidence of the effective use of the emerging technologies, thus facilitating a detailed evaluation of the experiences. Figure 1 provides an overview of the sequence of training activities, the structure of the two implementation phases, and the associated evaluation components. Figure 1 Mobile Technology in Inclusive Education Programme Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof The face-to-face component of the programme was divided into three sessions designed to provide an interactive and practical learning experience. In the first session, the first four modules of the course were presented. The participants received theoretical information and participated in interactive activities to understand the concepts. They were assigned an initial case study: choosing two mobile applications to carry out an inclusive practice in their subjects, promoting the immediate application of learning. In the second Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof session, the faculty members presented their case studies from the first session, followed by peer feedback through an online quiz. The last four modules, which were focused on advanced methodologies and tools for inclusive practice, were then explored. The faculty members collaborated in planning a second case study, where they designed a session using one of the explored methodologies. In the third and final session, the participants presented their case studies, followed by an interactive discussion with peers and trainers. This phase allowed for a critical and constructive review of the designed practices. Regarding the evaluation of the development of the training programme, although the participants expressed satisfaction, they also raised recommendations for improving the programme during its implementation. One of the aspects pointed out by the faculty members was the need to pay more detailed attention to inclusion, especially in the context of educational practices: "In my case, I did not know very well how to adapt the issue of inclusion in the practices I had to do. I feel that I am learning more about applications and technologies, but less about inclusion, and I would like to see more emphasis on this issue, if possible" (PIP4). To meet this need, practical sessions were held in face-to-face workshops. In these workshops, participants could explore inclusive practices and receive individualised guidance on how to apply these strategies in real teaching situations. Collaborative work among faculty members was also encouraged, allowing them to share experiences and best practices for implementing inclusive methods in their classrooms. Another important suggestion was related to the provision of examples and supporting material. Several participants expressed the need for a wider variety of practical examples to illustrate the concepts presented during the programme. To address this need, Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Moodle platform, to create a more intuitive and functional virtual environment for all programme users, thus ensuring a truly enriching and effective online learning experience. Thirdly, since universities design them, it is common that many training courses are limited to a theoretical approach to content, with limited impact on improving the teaching practice. Therefore, it would be highly beneficial for any training action to provide the opportunity to apply the contents in the teaching practice, and it would be even more effective if this practice could be shared with colleagues and evaluated during the course itself. It would be advisable for universities to include actions with a practical approach in their training programmes and to use the reflection-action-reflection modality. This approach is precisely what we implemented in our training programme, and we believe that it is one of the keys for faculty members to acquire digital and inclusive competencies effectively. Our study, as that of Moriña and Carballo (2017), is based on the idea that the more practice-oriented the training is, the better the obtained results are. This programme could serve as an example for other universities, as it combines face-to-face sessions that include the resolution of practical cases and real simulations with online training, thus guaranteeing a comprehensive practical perspective. The programme's result, the acquisition of digital skills, highlights the value of PD opportunities provided by universities to promote inclusion (Park et al., 2017; Roberts et al., 2011). Teaching with technologies from an inclusive approach, guided by the principles of UDL, enables accessible and inclusive learning environments and ensures the participation of all students, without exception (Cast, 2024; Koutsouris et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2021). This training approach supports previous findings from other studies (Talan, 2020; Wang et al., 2009) by demonstrating that these teaching practices significantly improve students' active participation, peer interactions, motivation, and attention. Moreover, from Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof a faculty PD perspective, it represents a significant advance in providing faculty members with the confidence and preparation to address the challenges of today's educational environment (Lee et al., 2022). In this study, we have focused mainly on ensuring that the practices were inclusive, promoting learning, participation and a sense of belonging for all students. The data obtained leave no room for doubt: the practices with technologies developed by teachers significantly impacted inclusion, as they fostered educational environments that were more accessible, equitable and focused on the needs of all participants (Koutsouris et al., 2022; Hitch et al., 2016). The inclusion in this study not only referred to the accessibility of technologies but also to the adaptation of pedagogical methodologies to address the diversity of the student body. During the programme's design, specific strategies were incorporated to ensure the active participation of all students, such as the use of accessible platforms and technological tools adapted to different needs. In short, given the significant importance of faculty training in promoting inclusive and equitable education, it is essential to consider some key recommendations for PD in universities: 1) designing programmes that are flexible and adaptable to faculty's needs and schedules, including online training options and the possibility of accessing learning resources at any time; 2) integrating technology effectively, enabling faculty members to acquire digital skills that allow them to make the most of technological tools for the creation of inclusive and enriching learning experiences; 3) fostering collaboration and good practice sharing, creating opportunities for collaboration and peer learning that enrich training and provide valuable insights into how to address specific challenges in the classroom; 4) providing opportunities to practise training content with the aim of improving the faculty's Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof understanding and capacity for application; and 5) evaluating in an ongoing and evidencebased manner, in order to measure the impact of training on the teaching practice. As this study shows, promoting inclusive and equitable education in universities requires continuous engagement with faculty PD. The above recommendations can serve as a starting point for designing effective programmes that prepare faculty members to meet the changing challenges of education in post-covid times and contribute to the achievement of a more prepared society that is by all and for all. 6. Limitations and further research One limitation of this study is the limited participation of faculty members, which reduces the representativeness of the different areas of knowledge. Although it would have been preferable to have a larger sample of participants, the current demands of the teaching profession, marked by an intense dedication to research and management, have made it difficult to obtain a larger sample. In future research, consider a large and diverse sample of faculty members covering various subject areas. Such a broadening of participation would allow for a complete and more representative picture of the needs and experiences of education professionals in acquiring digital and inclusive skills. Another limitation is that the study was conducted at a single university, which may restrict the generalisability of the results globally. To gain a more holistic and representative understanding of PD practices about digital inclusion and competencies in HE, it would be essential to replicate this study in multiple educational institutions, covering diverse contexts and realities. This would enable a more accurate evaluation of the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed strategies and approaches in various academic and geographical contexts. Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Finally, another limitation is that we have evaluated programme outcomes exclusively through interviews and focus groups. Although these qualitative methodologies provide valuable information, the programme's impact on student learning and faculty professional development could be assessed by incorporating more data collection methods, such as teacher and student surveys, classroom observations, and collecting teaching artefacts and student assignments. Despite these limitations, this study's results offer valuable insights and will serve as a starting point for more comprehensive future research in this field. 7. Conclusions Within the framework of this research focusing on faculty training in emerging technologies and inclusion, the findings have shed light on the complex dynamics of inclusive teaching in the digital age. This study offers insights into how a carefully designed training programme and a b-learning methodology can transform educational practices and promote inclusion for all learners. The trained faculty not only acquired technical skills but also internalised the importance of adapting these technologies to meet the diverse needs of their students. These results underscore the importance of ongoing and specialised training to ensure that inclusive education is not just an aspiration but a reality in 21st-century classrooms. We hope that the findings and results obtained can be replicated in other universities to contribute to the improvement of inclusion and equity in HE. The results of this research can provide valuable guidance for policy decisions and the planning of educational interventions, offering informed perspectives to address the changing demands of contemporary education. Investment in improving HE in these respects is an investment in a fairer and more equitable future for all, contributing to HE institutions' educational and social responsibility. Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Funding This work was supported by (title removed for an anonymous review) [grant number XXX]. Declaration of AI The authors have produced this manuscript without artificial intelligence support. CRediT authorship contribution statement Author 1: Conceptualisation, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Finding, discussion and conclusions, review & editing, Funding acquisition. Author 2. Conceptualisation, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Finding, discussion and conclusions, review & editing, Funding acquisition. Acknowledgments This work was supported by (name removed for anonymous review) Data availability Data will be made available on request. Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof References Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition. EDUCAUSE. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0/ Altay, B. (2014). User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827646 Ault, M. J., & Horn, C. K. (2018). Increasing Active Engagement: Guidelines for Using Student Response Systems. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(3), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418775745 Báez, J. C., Marquart, M., Yae-Eun Chung, R., Ryan, D., & Garay, K. (2019). Developing and Supporting Faculty Training for Online Social Work Education: The Columbia University School of Social Work Online Pedagogy Institute. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 39(4-5), 505-518. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2019.1653419 Bas, M., & Sarigöz, O. (2018). Determining the readiness levels of pre-service teachers towards mobile learning in classroom management. Educational Research and Reviews, 13(10), 382-390. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2018.3523 Bong, W. K., & Chen, W. (2021). Increasing faculty’s competence in digital accessibility for inclusive education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1937344 Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2006). Improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities: Designing professional development for faculty. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18(2), 135–147. Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AHEAD/38b602f4-ec53-451c-9be05c0bf5d27c0a/UploadedImages/JPED_ARCHIVE/18/JPEDVol18No2.rtf Castellano-Beltran, A., Carballo, R. & Moriña, A. (2025). Benefits and challenges of inclusive emerging technologies in universities: Analysis of the voice of students. Educational and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13374-2 CAST. (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ Criollo-C, S., González-Rodríguez, M., Guerrero-Arias, A., Urquiza-Aguiar, L. F., & Luján-Mora, S. (2024). A Review of Emerging Technologies and Their Acceptance in Higher Education. Education Sciences, 14(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010010 Czerkawski, B. C. (2013). Strategies for Integrating Emerging Technologies: Case Study of an Online Educational Technology Master’s Program. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(4), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6110 Dell’Anna, S., Bevilacqua, A., Marsili, F., Morganti, A., & Fiorucci, A. (2024). UDL-based interventions for Faculty Development in Higher Education: a Systematic Review. Journal of Inclusive Methodology and Technology in Learning and Teaching, 4(2sup). https://inclusiveteaching.it/index.php/inclusiveteaching/article/view/211 Desimone, L. (2009). How can we best measure teachers’ professional development and its effects on teachers and students? Educational Researcher, 38, 181-199. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20532527 Fernández Batanero, J. M., Montenegro Rueda, M., Fernández Cerero, J., & García Martínez, I. (2022). Assistive technology for the inclusion of students with disabilities: a systematic review. Educational technology research and development, 70, 19111930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10127-7 Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Gelbar, N. W., Madaus, J. W., Lombardi, A., Faggella-Luby, M., & Dukes, L. (2015). College Students with Physical Disabilities: Common On Campus, Uncommon in the Literature. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.14434/pders.v34i2.19224 Gunersel, A. B., & Etienne, M. (2014). The Impact of a Faculty Training Program on Teaching Conceptions and Strategies. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 404-413. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/160014/ Hitch, D., Dell, K., & Larkin, H. (2016). Does universal design education impact on the attitudes of architecture students towards people with disability? Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 6(1), 26-48. https://doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v6i1.103 Hockings, C., Brett, P., & Terentjevs, M. (2012). Making a difference—inclusive learning and teaching in higher education through open educational resources. Distance Education, 33(2), 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.692066 Huang, Y., Han, X., & Wang, Y. (2017). Learning 'B-learning' through 'B-learning': A Practice Model for Teachers' Professional Development. 6th International Conference of Educational Innovation Through Technology (EITT). https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT.2017.18 Janahi, Y., AlDhaen, E., Hamdan, A., & Nureldeen, W. (2023). Emerging technologies for digitalized learning in higher education. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/dlo-09-2022-0183 Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., & Zourmpakis, A. I. (2021). Gamification in Science Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Educational Sciences, 11, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010022 Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Kluge, M. G., Maltby, S., Kuhne, C., Evans, D. J. R., & Walker, F. R. (2023). Comparing approaches for selection, development, and deployment of extended reality (XR) teaching applications: A case study at The University of Newcastle Australia. Educational and Information Technologies, 28, 4531–4562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11364-2 Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publisher Koutsouris, G., Stentiford, L., & Norwich, B. (2022). A critical exploration of inclusion policies of elite UK universities. British Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 878-895 https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3799 Lampropoulos, G., Keramopoulos, E., Diamantaras, K., & Evangelidis, G. (2022). Augmented Reality and Gamification in Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Research, Applications, and Empirical Studies. Applied Sciences, 12(13), 6809. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136809 Lázaro, G., & Duart, J. (2023). You Can Handle, You Can Teach It: Systematic Review on the Use of Extended Reality and Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Online Higher Education. Sustainability, 15(4), 3507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043507. Lee, K., Fanguy, M., Bligh, B., & Lu, X. S. (2022). Adoption of online teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a systematic analysis of changes in university teaching activity. Educational Review, 74(3), 460-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1978401 Looi, C.-K., Sun, D., Seow, P. y Chia, G. (2014). Enacting a technology-based science curriculum across a grade level: the journey of teachers’ appropriation. Computers & Education, 71, 222-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.006 Journal Pre-proof Journal Pre-proof Martin, F., Dennen, V.P. & Bonk, C.J. (2020). A synthesis of systematic review research on emerging learning environments and technologies. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 1613–1633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09812-2 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publishing. Moriña, A. (2022). When what is unseen does not exist: disclosure, barriers and supports for students with invisible disabilities in higher education, Disability & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2113038 Moriña, A., & Carballo, R. (2017). The impact of a faculty training program on inclusive education and disability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 65, 77-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.06.004 Nguwi, Y. Y. (2021). Technologies for Education. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 8(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.32674/jimphe.v8i1.4950 Park, H. J.; Roberts, K., & Danielle, D. (2017). The Effects of Professional Development on Universal Design for Instruction on Faculty Perception and Practice. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(2), 123-139. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1153546 Pegalajar-Palomino, M. C., 2022. Implications of Mobile Learning for Sustainable Inclusive Education: A Systematic Review. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 20(5), 538-553. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.5.2612 Pelletier, K., Robert, J., Muscanell, N., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Arbino, N., Grajek, S., Birdwell, T., Liu, D., Mandernach, J., Moore, A., Porcaro, A., Rutledge, R., & Zimmern, J. (2023). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report, Teaching and Learning Edition (Boulder, CO: