Recommendations about inclusive pedagogy for Spanish faculty members in the area of Social and Legal Sciences

Recommendations about inclusive pedagogy for Spanish faculty members in the area of Social and Legal Sciences Ana Doménech a, Inmaculada Orozco b,*, Rosario Lopez-Gavira c *Corresponding author a Department of Didactics, Faculty of Education, Universidad de Cadiz, Spain. [email protected].es b Department of Didactics and Educational Organisation, Faculty of Education Sciences, Universidad de Sevilla, Spain. [email protected] c Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad de Sevilla Spain. [email protected] Abstract This paper provides a useful guide of recommendations drawn from the experiences described by 25 Spanish inclusive faculty members of the area of Social and Legal Sciences. We used a qualitative methodology and data was gathered using interviews. The action guidelines and recommendations obtained are based on the implementation of an inclusive pedagogy that prioritises the participation and success of all students. The results are divided into six categories: facultystudent relationship, resources, methodology, reasonable adjustments, mentoring and evaluation. Lastly, this study shows that the teaching strategies that promote inclusion do not only benefit students with disabilities but have a general positive effect on all students. Keywords: Recommendations; Faculty members; Inclusive pedagogy; Students with disabilities Social and legal sciences Introduction Universities are essential spaces for improving the quality of life of people, increase employment opportunities and contribute to the struggle against social exclusion (De Clerc, 2 Galand & Frenay, 2020; Lipka, Khouri & Schecter-Lerner, 2020). Thus, in order to be inclusive, universities must promote social inclusion and prevent elitism, as it reduces their quality as higher education institutions (Israel et al., 2017). In the academic year 2019–2020, there were 19,919 students with some type of disability registered at Spanish universities, of whom 8582 (approximately 43%) belonged to the area of Social and Legal Sciences (Universia Foundation, 2021). These data show that there is an increasing number of students with disabilities who decide to undertake university studies. However, their presence in the university does not entail full inclusion (Moriña & Orozco, 2021), as is shown by the testimonies of these students on the degree of inclusion in Spanish universities. According to a study of the Universia Fundation (2021), a considerable percentage of university students with disabilities asserted that they felt discriminated at some point throughout their university journey. The main reasons highlighted by them were related to the attitude of the faculty (disrespect, lack of attention to their needs, bad attitude, etc.) (38.2%) or accessibility problems, such as architectural barriers, not adapted exams, lack of curricular adaptation, etc. (37.9%). In this sense, the studies of Carballo, Aguirre, & Lopez-Gavira (2021), Hewett, Douglas, McLinden and Keil (2017), Osborne (2019) and Svendby (2020) also indicate that students with disabilities do not feel welcome because the faculty has not received institutional training or guidance on how to adapt their practices with the aim of achieving inclusive learning experiences. In many cases, the response they receive from their faculty is a different treatment, tending to create unpleasant and excluding situations (Asikainen, Blomster & Virtanen, 2018; Spassiani et al., 2017; Vergunst & Swartz, 2021). Some of such situations derive not only from the lack of faculty training on how to attend to students with disabilities, but also from the faculty’s lack of predisposition to learn more about the needs and rights of each student (Shpigelman, Mor, Sachs & Schreuer, 2021). Therefore, it can be asserted that faculty training is an element that favours inclusion, although it is not a fundamental requirement for the capacity of a faculty member to develop inclusive practices at the university (Carballo et al., 2021). Consequently, to achieve the educational inclusion of students with disabilities in the classrooms, it is not sufficient to use different inclusive methodological strategies; it is also necessary to develop adequate affective and emotional skills (Kezar & Maxey, 2014; Moriña, 2020; Postareff, Mattsson, Lindblom-Ylanne & Hailikari, 2017). In fact, promoting a strong relationship between faculty members and students, and fostering the participation of every 3 student in the classroom is a fundamental route (Juma, Lehtomaki ¨ & Naukkarinen, 2017). From this perspective, supporting the participation and success of all students is not just an option, but a matter of responsibility and social justice (Gibson, 2015; Liasidou, 2014; Perez-Carbonell, Ramos-Santana ´ & Martínez-Usarralde, 2021). Under the point of view of social justice, the faculty member is a key player, since his/her attitudes, skills and knowledge can favour the construction of inclusive learning contexts for all students (Inda-Caro et al., 2018). Different studies (Carballo et al., 2021; Hockings, 2011; Naz & Murad, 2017) show that one of the essential aspects for the inclusion of students with disabilities is related to a more humane and affective learning approach. The mentioned studies report that faculty members who do carry out inclusive practices in the university consider a close relationship with their students as fundamental. Similarly, it is necessary to be eager to help, to apply common sense, to have a fluid and open communication, and to show concern for the well-being and learning of the students (Ehlinger & Ropers, 2020). In this sense, following Potee (2002) and Falout, Elwood and Hood (2009), an accessible and friendly attitude toward the students has a positive influence on their involvement and learning. Previous studies have detected that inclusive faculty consider it necessary to create a classroom climate based on respect, which guarantees that students feel confident in the classroom and willing to participate and ask for help (Moriña, 2020). Additionally, it is unquestionable that an open climate values diversity, and its possibilities benefit all students, not only those with disabilities (Dangoisse, De Clercq, Van Meenen, Chartier & Nils, 2020). Some promising studies (Gale, Mills & Cross, 2017) show practices of inclusive faculty who usually develop active and participatory strategies that benefit all their students. These practical strategies are based on working with the students, instead of acting on them, and they can serve as an example to other faculty members (Carballo et al., 2021; Moriña, 2020; Perez-Carbonell et al., 2021). Studies focused on the voice of students with disabilities (Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele & Andries, 2017; Morgado, Moriña & Lopez-Gavira, 2017; Rodríguez, Izuzquiza & Cabrera, 2021) indicate that one of the main barriers that these students detect at university are related to inadequate teaching practices. Specifically, many of them refer to the use of technological resources and rigid, poorly motivating methodologies with no practical application 4 in the professional scope (Babic & Dowling, 2015; Morgado et al., 2017; Rodríguez et al., 2021). In most cases, this is accompanied by a lack of reasonable adjustments offered by the faculty and the little help that students receive from the disability support services of their universities (Hewett et al., 2017; Kim & Crowley, 2021; Shpigelman et al., 2021). However, while the faculty can be a barrier, they can also provide decisive help to prevent students from dropping out of the university and guarantee their academic success (Couzens et al., 2015; Lombardi, Murray & Kowitt, 2016; Stein, 2014). To this end, it is recommended that faculty members use participatory and inclusive methodological strategies based on a student-centred approach (Cunningham, 2013; Moriña, 2020; Thomas, 2016). Likewise, it is crucial that they rethink their evaluation methods and offer different ways in which their students can show what they have learnt (Nieminen, 2022). In this sense, to overcome the barriers encountered by students with disabilities, Universal Design of Learning (UDL) offers adequate teaching strategies to make reasonable adjustments in a proactive manner. Moreover, this framework considers that the adaptations in the design of the subjects benefit not only students with disabilities, but all students (Bunbury, 2018; Griful- Freixenet et al., 2017). These studies, as well as those of Osborne (2019) and Yusof, Chong, Hilma, Zailly and Mat (2020), further show that students with disabilities have a positive opinion about inclusive evaluation systems and continuous evaluations with alternative test modalities, such as feedback, cooperative learning and group discussions. Regarding the voice of the faculty, there are relevant studies about the actions of faculty members who contribute to the inclusion of students. In this line, the results of Sandoval, Morgado, and Doménech (2021) highlight that these faculty usually care about the design of an accessible space, provide teaching materials in advance, resort to peer support and carry out exams with reasonable adjustments (changes of spaces, more time, oral exams…, etc.). Specifically for the area of Social and Legal Sciences, Carballo et al. (2021) point out the relevance of carrying out such adaptations, establishing a good mentoring system, coordinating with the disability service and exchanging opinions with other colleagues. Similarly, the mentioned authors state that active and participatory teaching methods are the most effective and beneficial, and they also underline the need for a solid institutional support and continuous evaluation. However, the access to inclusive teaching in the area of Social and Legal Sciences continues to be a pending issue (Wells 5 & Kommers, 2020). Concerns persist about how to make adjustments and train students with disabilities for their transition to the professional world (Anderson & Wylie, 2008). There are few studies aiming at offering useful recommendations and mechanisms to the faculty of this area that help them to implement inclusive strategies. Furthermore, a large number of studies focus on the detection of barriers for students with disabilities from the perspective of randomly selected faculty members (Johnmark, Orobia, Munene & Balunywa, 2017; Manley & De Graft-Johnson, 2013; Wells & Kommers, 2020). In the same vein, the study of Bunbury (2018 on the voice of faculty members of Legal Sciences in the UK highlights the need to use a non-traditional and varied methodology that welcomes all learning styles, a flexible and alternative evaluation based on debates, and the use of reasonable adjustments. Moreover, the study of Lorenzo-Lledo, Lorenzo, Lledó and Pérez-Vazquez (2020) quantitatively analysed the outlook of Spanish faculty members of different areas of knowledge (including Social and Legal Sciences) about inclusive teaching methodologies for students with disabilities. Some of their results indicated that faculty applied different strategies to promote inclusion. Nevertheless, they recognised that it is fundamental to make classes flexible and carry out continuous mentoring to support learning. Thus, we aim to fill this gap in the literature about the inclusion of students with disabilities in the area of Social and Legal Sciences. Specifically, our aim was to explore, understand and describe adequate guidelines and recommendations to become an inclusive faculty members in this area of knowledge. Unlike other studies (Johnmark et al., 2017; Manley & De Graft-Johnson, 2013; Wells & Kommers, 2020), the present study is focused on inclusive faculty, as it has been demonstrated that their attitudes, practices, reasonable adjustments and support are factors that facilitate the academic success of students with disabilities (Gale et al., 2017; O’Byrne, Jagoe & Lawler, 2019; Strnadová, Hájková, & Květoňová, 2015). To sum up, although it is important to recognise the role of training on matters of disability in the attention to students (Cunningham, 2013), the aim of this paper is to offer a useful and practical tool to ensure that the faculty of this area of knowledge, despite a lack of pedagogical or disability training (Carballo et al., 2021), receive a set of specific action guidelines to attain the inclusion of their students. To this end, we proposed the following research question: What does an inclusive faculty member do to ensure that his/her students with disabilities can learn, participate and succeed in his/her subject? 6 Method This study is part of a larger research project conducted by an interdisciplinary team and funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness entitled “Inclusive Pedagogy at the University: Faculty Narratives’ (Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain, EDU2016- 76587-R)”. This is a qualitative research that analyses which faculty members of different disciplines (Arts and Humanities, STEM, Health Sciences, Social and Legal Science) practice inclusive pedagogy and how and why they do so. Specifically, this paper is focused on exploring, understanding and describing what action guidelines recommended by faculty members of the area of Social and Legal Sciences can be valuable for other colleagues to attain the participation and success of university students with disabilities. Participants The recruitment process for the participants of this study was aided by the disability support offices of 10 Spanish universities. The staff of these disability support offices sent information on the project to students with disabilities of all areas of knowledge and asked for their voluntary collaboration. Students with disabilities then nominated faculty members who had contributed to their inclusion in the university, by writing to the e-mail address of the research team. To guarantee the aptitude of the inclusive faculty, the students with disabilities were given a list of characteristics that should be found in the faculty member(s) they selected: he/she facilitates the learning process; promotes an active learning; uses a variety of methodologies; cares about the learning of all students; is flexible and helps when a student needs it; motivates his/her students; attains group participation and learning; and makes every student feel important. Additionally, the snowball technique was used (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). In this sense, the students with disabilities that were previously known to the research team were asked to collaborate. Likewise, other faculty members known to the research team were also asked to collaborate in identifying students with disabilities. A total of 119 faculty members of the different areas of knowledge from 10 Spanish universities participated in the study. 25 of these participants belonged to the area of Social and Legal Sciences. In the recruitment process for this area of knowledge we originally obtained a total of 35 7 participants. However, 10 faculty members finally did not participate due to personal reasons or lack of time. With respect to the participants’ profile, all of them had experience with students with disabilities. Psychic disabilities were the most frequent (27.9%), followed by physical disabilities (25.5%), sensory disabilities (visual and auditory) (20.9%), learning difficulties (18.6%) and organic disabilities (6.9%). Regarding gender, 56% were men and 44% were women. The age was varied, since 12% of the participants were under 40 years of age, 40% were between 41 and 50 years of age, 44% were between 51 and 60 years of age, and only 4% were over 60 years of age. In relation to the teaching experience, 28% had less than 10 years of experience, 32% had between 11 and 20 years, 28% had between 21 and 30 years, and 12% had over 30 years. Most of the participants taught in Economics and Business (60%), followed by Law (20%), Journalism (12%) and Social Work (8%). Data collection instruments Semi-structured individual interviews were used as data-gathering technique. Each interview was carried out based on an interview script, which was piloted by Spanish faculty members who did not participate in the study. Based on the considerations of Florian (2014) and Gale and Mills (2013), this script contained four dimensions of inclusive pedagogy: beliefs, knowledge, designs and actions. Beliefs and knowledge of the participants were explored in a first interview, whereas designs and actions were addressed in a second interview. Doing two interviews instead of one helped to deepen the relations and trust with the participants, offer them flexibility and allow enough time to delve into each of the dimensions. The following questions were used in the interview to obtain the information presented in this article: • When you know that there is a student with a disability in your subject, what steps do you follow? • What practices/strategies do you use to foster the relationship with your students? • Do you use different resources to present contents (printed texts, technological media, presentations, videos…)? If so, why? 8 • How do you make available to your students the resources to be used in class (copy shop, virtual platform, delivery in class, by email, search by the student…)? Why do you use that/those way(s)? • Which of the teaching methodologies you use are the most effective for all students to learn? Why? And for students with disabilities? • What is your opinion about the need for adaptations in your subject so that students with disabilities can learn? • Do you make any modifications to the subject matter when there is a student with a disability? Why? What kind of modifications have you made? (if applicable) Why? • How do you assess? Is the assessment the same for all your students or do you make any changes or accommodations for students with disabilities. If so, why? Every full interview lasted approximately 90 min, and most of them were carried out face-to- face. However, due to personal reasons, preference, lack of time, and distance of the participants, four interviews had to be conducted via phone call and three via Skype videoconference. All interviews were recorded in audio and transcribed textually for subsequent analysis. Data analysis All information was qualitatively analysed using an inductive system of categories and codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data analysis was performed in two phases. The first phase (coding) was characterised by a broad and generic system of categories. The second phase generated new subcodes about the fundamental topics and ideas. Each subcode was analysed in depth for possible decomposition or fusion with other codes. The process of categorisation of all the information was carried out by the research team in order to discuss the information and perform a group analysis that helped to organise doubtful information. Lastly, the authors analysed again the categories and codes that responded to the specific research objective proposed in this article. To facilitate the processing of the information, the MaxQDA 12 software was used. Table 1 represents the categories and codes used for the analysis of the information presented in the results section of this article. 9 Ethical aspects The research project was ethically approved the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Before interviews were carried out, all participants read and signed an informed consent, which presented the objectives of the study and the participants’ rights and tasks. They agreed to be recorded in audio for the transcription of the interviews and were free to abandon the study whenever they wished to. Table 1 Categories, definition and codes system. Categories Definition Codes Starting the relationship Attitude or actions that faculty adopts when initiating the relationship with the students Show closeness Respect their privacy Offer them help Ask for help from the disability services Institutions or other professionals Resources Variety of resources used by the faculty to teach the subject Barrier-free spaces Accessible and available teaching materials Use of technological tools Methodology Methodological actions used in teaching Plan teaching with disability in mind Teach dynamic and practical classes Repeat important concepts at the beginning Do not force them to participate Reasonable adjustments Procedure used to make reasonable adjustments by adapting to the students. Make necessary adjustments Apply motivation Will and good practice Design the learning in a universal manner Tutorial action (Mentoring) Strategies for conducting student mentoring. Show willingness and flexibility Establish a systematic plan Conduct a follow-up Evaluation Assessment methods used and strategies applied to adapt them to the diversity of students. Establish different systems Use continuous evaluation Promote team evaluation Offer more time Adjust exam types and formats Adapt spaces 16 made in studies reporting the importance of this relationship as a key element for the inclusion of students with disabilities (Moriña & Orozco,2021, Carballo et al., 2021; Vergunst & Swartz, 2021). Thus, taking care of the first contacts and dedicating time to understand the real needs of all students will help to establish a more reliable relationship of trust. Our results show that knowing the personal characteristics, needs and particularities directly from the students themselves complements the indications that are gathered in the reports provided by the disability services. Similarly, as such relationship is positively established, it will impact the development of the classroom practices and, therefore, the climate and learning of all students (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017; Moriña, 2020). Moreover, this study demonstrates the importance of making reasonable adjustments in the different subjects, showing that such adjustments do not depend so much on a specific training or on great changes and methodological transformations, but rather on the true will of the faculty to do so and their common sense to make decisions about it (Carballo et al., 2021). The results of this study indicate that, with eagerness and predisposition, it is possible to make flexible designs in the subjects, provide all students with the necessary resources, and establish methodologies that benefit everyone. In fact, the faculty of the present study highlighted the importance of the will and commitment to learn, as they claimed that their lack of pedagogical training did not prevent them from designing their lectures in a proactive manner, applying the principles of UDL unknowingly, and accommodating all their students from the beginning. Similarly, mentoring has an important potential regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities (Horden, 2015; Lorenzo-Lledo, Lledo, Lorenzo, & Arraez, 2017; Sanahuja-Gavalda, Muñoz-Moreno & Gairín-Sallan, 2020). We learned that this element has been somewhat forgotten in higher education, although, if organised and potentiated through the mechanisms facilitated by the university itself, it becomes a key element to reinforce the learning of all students. In fact, as pointed out by Sanahuja-Gavalda et al. (2020), mentoring at university gives students the right to belong to a group and to not be excluded for their disability, and it is essential for the attainment of the objectives of the university institution and more normalised societies. Tutoring is a flexible tool in the university scope, and it has a highly positive effect on the participation, learning and success of the students. Lastly, in addition to the above mentioned, there is another necessary element: the approach on evaluation. As was stated by Boud and Soler (2016), evaluation must recognise and foster the 17 learning of the students and prepare them for their professional future. However, previous studies show that certain evaluation systems pose a barrier to students with disabilities (Grimes, Southgate, Scevak & Buchanan, 2019). Therefore, we consider that teaching in the university scope must provide flexible evaluation that can be accessed by all students (Dalton & Khurana, 2020; Nieminen, 2022; Tai, Ajjawi & Umarova, 2021), in which different options are offered based on the particular characteristics of each student. This approach will help to overcome the segregating evaluation that currently exists in higher education, thus fostering a more formative and inclusive evaluation for all students. Conclusion Although many studies have been focused on the barriers encountered by students with disabilities (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017; Morgado et al., 2017; Rodríguez et al., 2021), few works have addressed “inclusive faculty” and explored how to promote inclusion in a specific area of knowledge (in this case, Social and Legal Sciences). Furthermore, most studies focus the inclusive strategies on specific students and do not provide clues about how to promote inclusion in the class group, regardless of the situation or circumstance of the student. This was the main contribution of our study, since treatment with the student during the first days, resources used, methodology, reasonable adjustments, mentoring and evaluation are considered under a broad perspective of diversity. Although the faculty members of our study were selected by students with disabilities, they stated that everything they do for the sake of their inclusion is equally beneficial to the group as a whole. In this line, the present study highlights the urgent need to re-think the faculty training plans at universities. These should be compulsory (regardless of the area of knowledge) and designed as theoretical-practical workshops that help to exchange ideas among colleagues and, at the same time, to plan the sessions from a more inclusive perspective. To sum up, our aim was not to show a compilation of guidelines to follow, but some possible routes that demonstrate good practices and serve as a model. Each faculty member should consider the most suitable routes to apply in each specific situation. We hope that these guidelines help faculty members to implement an inclusive teaching for all students. 18 Limitations and future research lines This article explores the voices of inclusive faculty members, but it does not include the voices of students with disabilities or classroom observations. Future studies should combine both voices, in order to identify the best routes to follow with the aim of carrying out inclusive practices in the classroom. For example, this could be carried out through focus groups to show the main conclusions obtained from the observation of the sessions. Lastly, it would be interesting to include inclusive faculty members also from beyond the Spanish context. This would be valuable for the analysis of similarities and differences between countries and the identification of the inclusive practices that are carried out in each context. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain and FEDER funds European Union [grant numbers EDU2016-76587-R/Feder Funds]. References Anderson, A., & Wylie, N. (2008). Beyond the ADA: How clinics can assist law students with “Non-Visible” disabilities to bridge the accommodations gap between classroom and practice. Clinical Law Review, 15, 1–54. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp/220/. Asikainen, H., Blomster, J., & Virtanen, V. (2018). From functioning communality to hostile behaviour - students’ and teachers’ experiences of the teacher-student relationship in the academic community. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(5), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1302566 Babic, M., & Dowling, M. (2015). Social support, the presence of barriers and ideas for the future from students with disabilities in the higher education system in Croatia. Disability & Society, 30(4), 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1037949 Biggeri, M., Masi, D., & Bellacicco, R. (2020). Disability and higher education: Assessing students’ capabilities in two Italian universities using structured focus group discussions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(4), 909–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1654448 Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02602938.2015.1018133 19 Bunbury, S. (2018). Disability in higher education – do reasonable adjustments contribute to an inclusive curriculum? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24 (9), 964–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1503347 Carballo, R., Aguirre, A., & Lopez-Gavira, R. (2021). Social and juridical sciences faculty members’ experiences in Spain: What to do to develop an inclusive pedagogy. Disability & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1889980 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. Routledge. Couzens, D., Poed, S., Kataoka, M., Brandon, A., Hartley, J., & Keen, D. (2015). Support for students with hidden disabilities in universities: A case study. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.984592 Cunningham, S. (2013). Teaching a diverse student body – a proposed tool for lecturers to selfevaluate their approach to inclusive teaching. Practice and Evidence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 3–27. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17302656.pdf. Dalton, E., & Khurana, A. (2020). Making assessments inclusive. In D. Schmidt-Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference (Ed., pp. 2002–2006). Online: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) https://www.learntechlib.org/ primary/p/215980/. Dangoisse, F., De Clercq, M., Van Meenen, F., Chartier, L., & Nils, F. (2020). When disability becomes ability to navigate the transition to higher education: A comparison of students with and without disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(4), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08856257.2019.1708642 De Clerc, M., Galand, B., & Frenay, M. (2020). One goal, different pathways: Capturing diversity in processes leading to first-year students’ achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 81, Article 101908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101908 Ehlinger, E., & Ropers, R. (2020). ‘It’s all about learning as a community’: Facilitating the learning of students with disabilities in higher education classrooms. Journal of College Student Development, 61(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2020.0031 Falout, J., Elwood, J., & Hood, M. (2009). Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes. System, 37, 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.004 20 Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08856257.2014.933551 Gale, T., Mills, C., & Cross, R. (2017). Socially inclusive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116685754 Gale, T., & Mills, M. (2013). Creating spaces in higher education for marginalised Australians: Principles for socially inclusive pedagogies. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 5(2), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.11120/elss.2013.00008 Gibson, S. (2015). When rights are not enough: What is? Moving towards new pedagogy for inclusive education within UK universities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(8), 875–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015. 1015177 Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Verstichele, M., & Andries, C. (2017). Higher education students with disabilities speaking out: Perceived barriers and opportunities of the universal design for learning framework. Disability & Society, 32(10), 1627–1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1365695 Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., & Buchanan, R. (2019). Learning impacts reported by students living with learning challenges/disability. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1146– 1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1661986 Hewett, R., Douglas, G., McLinden, M., & Keil, S. (2017). Developing an inclusive learning environment for students with visual impairment in higher education: Progressive mutual accommodation and learner experiences in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08856257.2016.1254971 Hockings, C. (2011). Hearing voices, creating spaces: The craft of the ‘Artisan Teacher’ in a mass higher education system. Critical Studies in Education, 52(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2011.572831 Horden, J. (2015). Higher apprenticeships and the shaping of vocational knowledge. Research in Post-Comulsory Education, 20, 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 11356405.2019.1709392 Inda-Caro, M., Maulana, R., Fernandez´ ‑Garc.a, C. M., Pena˜ ‑Calvo, J. V., Rodríguez‑Men´endez, M. C., & Helms‑Lorenz, M. (2018). Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour and student engagement: Perspectives from Spanish students. Learning Environments Research, 22, 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984- 21 018-9275-z Israel, M., Skead, N., Heath, M., Hewitt, A., Galloway, K., & Steel, A. (2017). Fostering “quiet inclusion”: Interaction and diversity in the Australian law classroom. Journal of Legal Education, 66(2), 332–356. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26402487. Johnmark, R., Orobia, L., Munene, J., & Balunywa, W. (2017). The role of entrepreneurship education in shaping entrepreneurial action of disabled students in Nigeria. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 29(4), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2017.1312217 Juma, S., Lehtomaki, E., & Naukkarinen, A. (2017). Scaffolding teachers to foster inclusive pedagogy and presence through collaborative action research. ¨ Educational Action Research, 25(5), 720–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1266957 Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2014). Students outcomes assessment among the new non-tenure-track faculty majority. Occasional Paper, 21. http://www. learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/OP218-29-14.pdf. Kilpatrick, S., Johns, S., Barnes, R., Fischer, S., McLennan, D., & Magnussen, K. (2017). Exploring the retention and success of students with disability in Australian higher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(7), 747–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 603116.2016.1251980 Kim, S., & Crowley, S. (2021). Understanding perceptions and experiences of autistic undergraduate students toward disability support offices of their higher education institutions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 113, Article 10139566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103956 Liasidou, A. (2014). Critical disability studies and socially just change in higher education. Social Justice in Higher Education, 41(2), 120–235. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-8578.12063 Lipka, O., Khouri, M., & Schecter-Lerner, Michael (2020). University faculty attitudes and knowledge about learning disabilities. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 982– 996. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1695750 Lombardi, A., Murray, C., & Kowitt, J. (2016). Social support and academic success for college students with disabilities: Do relationship types matter? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44(1), 1–13. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-ofvocational-rehabilitation/jvr776. 22 Lorenzo-Lledo, A., Lorenzo, A., Lled´ o, A., & P´ ´erez-Vazquez, E. (2020). Inclusive methodologies from the teaching perspective for improving performance in university ´ students with disabilities. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 10(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.887 Lorenzo-Lledo, G., Lled´ o, A., Lorenzo, A., & Arr´ aez, G. (2017). La acci´ on tutorial como acompa´ namiento en el alumnado universitario con discapacidad: hacia una ˜ educacion inclusiva. ´ International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 4(1), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2017.n1.v4.1036 Manley, S., & De Graft-Johnson, A. (2013). Towards inclusion: Rethinking architectural education. Construction Management and Economics, 31(8), 914–927. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.797093 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage. Morgado, B., Moriña, A., & L˜ opez-Gavira, R. (2017). The ideal university classroom: Stories by students with disabilities. ´ International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.013 Moriña, A. (2020). Faculty members who engage in inclusive pedagogy: Methodological and affective strategies for teaching. ˜ Teaching in Higher Education, 27(3), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1724938 Moriña, A., & Orozco, I. (2021). Spanish faculty members speak out: Barriers and aids for students with disabilities at university. ˜ Disability & Society, 36(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1723495 Naz, F., & Murad, H. S. (2017). Innovative teaching has a positive impact on the performance of diverse students. Special Collection- Student Diversity, 7(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017734022 Nieminen, J. H. (2022). Assessment for inclusion: Rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562517.2021.2021395 O’Byrne, C., Jagoe, C., & Lawler, M. (2019). Experiences of dyslexia and the transition to university: A case study of five students at different stages of study. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(5), 1031–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1602595 23 Osborne, T. (2019). Not lazy, not faking: Teaching and learning experiences of university students with disabilities. Disability & Society, 34(2), 228–252. https://doi. org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1515724 P´erez-Carbonell, A., Ramos-Santana, G., & Martínez-Usarralde, M. J. (2021). Comparative Inclusion: What Spanish higher education teachers assert. Social Inclusion, 9 (3), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4030 Postareff, L., Mattsson, M., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Hailikari, T. (2017). The complex relationship between emotions, approaches to learning, study success and study ¨ progress during the transition to university. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 73(3), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-016-0096-7 Potee, N. (2002). Teacher immediacy and student motivation. In D. M. McInerney, & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Sociocultural influences on motivation and learning: An historical perspective (Eds., pp. 207–223). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Rodríguez, R., Izuzquiza, D., & Cabrera, A. (2021). Inclusive education at a Spanish university: The voice of students with intellectual disability. Disability & Society, 36 (3), 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1745758 Sanahuja-Gavalda, J. M., Mu` noz-Moreno, J. L., & Gairín-Sall˜ an, J. (2020). Tutoring students with disabilities at the university. ´ Culture and Education, 32(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2019.1709392 Sandoval, M., Morgado, B., & Domenech, A. (2021). University students with disabilities in Spain: faculty beliefs, practices and support in providing reasonable ´ adjustments. Disability & Society, 36(5), 730–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1751078 Shpigelman, C., Mor, S., Sachs, D., & Schreuer, N. (2021). Supporting the development of students with disabilities in higher education: Access, stigma, identity, and power. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1960303 Spassiani, N., Murchadha, N., Clince, M., Biddulph, K., Conradie, P., Costello, F., et al. (2017). Likes, dislikes, supports and barriers: The experience of students with disabilities in university in Ireland. Disability & Society, 32(6), 892–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1320272 Stein, F., . K.. (2014). Experiences of college students with psychological disabilities: The impact of perceptions of faculty characteristics on academic achievement. International Journal of 24 Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(1), 55–65. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1043011.pdf. Strnadová, I., Hájková, V., & Květoňová, L. (2015). Voices of university students with disabilities: Inclusive education on the tertiary level´ —A reality or a distant dream? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(10), 1080–1109. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1037868 Svendby, R. (2020). Lecturers’ teaching experiences with invisibly disabled students in higher education: Connecting and aiming at inclusion. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 22(1), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.71 Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., & Umarova, A. (2021). How do students experience inclusive assessment? A critical review of contemporary literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011441 Taneja, S. (2021). Looking back on compulsory school: Narratives of young adults with ADHD in Sweden. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 26(2), 163–175, 110.1080/13632752.2021.1930904. Thomas, L. (2016). Developing inclusive learning to improve the engagement, belonging, retention, and success of students from diverse groups. In M. Shah, A. Bennett, & E. Southgate (Eds.) (Eds.,, Vol. 1. Widening higher education participation. A global perspective (pp. 35–159). Elsevier. Universia Foundation. (2021). University and disability. V study on the degree of inclusion of the Spanish university system with respect to the reality of disability. [Universidad y Discapacidad. V Estudio sobre el grado de inclusión del sistema universitario español respecto de la realidad de la discapacidad]. CERMI. ˜ https:// www.fundacionuniversia.net/content/dam/fundacionuniversia/pdf/estudios/V_Estudio_Univer sidad_y_Discapacidad_2019_20.pdf. Vergunst, R., & Swartz, L. (2021). He doesn’t understand that he’s struggling with the way I felt’ – university students, psychosocial disability and disclosure in the Western Cape. South Africa. Disability & Society, 36(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1730159 Wells, R., & Kommers, S. (2020). Graduate and professional education for students with disabilities: Examining access to STEM, legal, and health fields in the United States. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1726299 25 Yusof, Y., Chong, C., Hilma, A., Zailly, F., & Mat, Z. (2020). Improving inclusion of students with disabilities in Malaysian higher education. Disability & Society, 35(7), 1145–1170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1667304