‘With arms wide open’. Inclusive pedagogy in higher education in Spain

For Peer Review Only ‘With arms wide open’. Inclusive Pedagogy in Higher Education in Spain Journal: Disability & Society Manuscript ID CDSO-2021-0295.R3 Manuscript Type: Original Article Keywords: Inclusive Pedagogy, Higher Education, Disability, Faculty Members, Qualitative Method Abstract: This study sheds light on how to develop inclusive pedagogy in higher education, from the point of view of 42 inclusive faculty members from 6 Spanish universities. A qualitative methodology was used through semistructured in-depth interviews. Data analysis was inductive, using a system of categories and topics. The results reveal that the faculty members which develop inclusive pedagogy in general have beliefs linked to the social model of disability and inclusive education approaches. They do not usually have specific training or knowledge about disability. They design their curricula in a flexible and open way to accommodate all students. They show a positive attitude toward students with disabilities and use diverse and participatory teaching methodologies, giving prominence to students. These data are consistent with those found in previous studies and offer keys to those faculty members who are interested in developing an inclusive pedagogy at the university. URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society For Peer Review Only Points of interest This paper examines in detail how faculty members of six faculties of educational sciences develop a theoretical framework comprising beliefs, knowledge, designs and actions. The research has found that faculty members hold beliefs about disability based on the social model of disability and inclusive approach. In general, inclusive faculty members' knowledge of disability and attention to diversity issues is scarce. The design of courses and teaching programmes led by inclusive university faculty is characterised by being open, flexible and providing clear and detailed information to students. Faculty who develop inclusive pedagogy use varied, participative and active methodologies, which are combined with a positive and approachable attitude towards students with disabilities. Page 1 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only ‘With arms wide open’. Inclusive Pedagogy in Higher Education in Spain Abstract: This study sheds light on how to develop inclusive pedagogy in higher education, from the point of view of 42 inclusive faculty members from 6 Spanish universities. A qualitative methodology was used through semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data analysis was inductive, using a system of categories and topics. The results reveal that the faculty members which develop inclusive pedagogy in general have beliefs linked to the social model of disability and inclusive education approaches. They do not usually have specific training or knowledge about disability. They design their curricula in a flexible and open way to accommodate all students. They show a positive attitude toward students with disabilities and use diverse and participatory teaching methodologies, giving prominence to students. These data are consistent with those found in previous studies and offer keys to those faculty members who are interested in developing an inclusive pedagogy at the university. Keywords: Inclusive Pedagogy, Higher Education, Disability, Faculty Members, Qualitative Method Introduction The 2030 Agenda promotes a global plan for the recognition of the rights of all people and the construction of an integrated society that respects the principle of equal opportunities and non-discrimination (United Nations 2015). In this regard, the European Union is clearly committed to inclusive education in the framework of higher education. It proposes the creation of support plans and university services to improve access and educational inclusion for non-traditional students, including students with disabilities. In Page 2 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only the case of Spain, Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013 on the rights of people with disabilities and their social inclusion and Organic Law 4/2007 on Universities explicitly mention the inclusion of people with disabilities in higher education, establishing the guarantee of equal opportunities and non-discrimination toward them. Clearly, this legislation has been a step forward in the regulation of equity and quality for people with disabilities. However, it is still clear that the inequalities derived from disability are the least institutionally addressed situations, and this problem is absent in the proposals and analyses of university policies, university practices and ongoing faculty training. In this sense, Gibson (2015) and Weedon and Riddell (2016) point out that the university has not yet adopted adequate strategies to include students with disabilities, and that there are still difficulties for the access and retention of these students. Therefore, inclusive education is still a challenge to be overcome by contemporary universities. In the 2020/2021 academic year, a total of 23,851 students with disabilities enrolled in Spanish universities, which represents a rise of approximately 11% compared to the 2019/2020 academic year, in which 21,435 students enrolled. Students with disabilities represent 1.5% of all Spanish university students. (Universia Foundation 2021). The opportunity to study at university is an empowering experience for most students; however, students with disabilities face more difficulties in this experience than their peers with no disabilities (Fuller, Healey, Bradley, and Hall 2005). In recent years, there has been a growing interest in knowing what participation is like and what characterises the experiences of students with disabilities in higher education (Fuller, Riddell, and Weedon 2009; Riddell, Tinklin, and Wilson 2005), since universities of high quality are inclusive (Gairín and Suárez 2014). Page 3 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Inclusive pedagogy has been identified as a pedagogical approach that can favour the path towards an accessible university designed for all, avoiding the exclusion of certain students, as it contemplates and offers a wide range of learning and participation opportunities through an inclusive, fair and equitable social system (Florian 2015). From this approach, the decisions that are made are determined by the knowledge, competences and actions of the faculty, the values and beliefs about the students and the teaching and learning process, and by social processes and influences (Alexander 2004). Likewise, from this approach, diversity is embraced as an inherent human characteristic and disability is seen as a positive asset rather than as a problem (Booth and Ainscow 2002; Sapon-Shevin 2013). In this sense, inclusive pedagogy connects with the contributions of Gale and Mills (2013) and with the proposals of Florian (2014) and Rouse (2008), and it is articulated in a framework of analysis that encompasses four dimensions: beliefs, knowledge, designs and actions. In this framework of analysis, the beliefs of the faculty refer to the conceptions, principles or maxims that lead them to design and develop teaching projects in which all students are included, responding to individual differences, but preventing students from feeling singled out for being treated differently (Florian 2014). This dimension is particularly important given that beliefs are closely linked to faculty practice (Sansom 2020) and are often stable personal appraisals that are difficult to change (Göransson and Nilholm 2014). Knowledge refers to the theoretical, policy or legislative approaches that lead faculty members to support inclusive pedagogy. There is considerable evidence on the lack of training for faculty members on disability and how to respond to the needs of students with disabilities (Hsiao, Burgstahler, Johnson, Nuss, and Doherty 2019; Sánchez-Díaz and Morgado, 2021). Lombardi, Murray, and Gerdes (2011), Moriña and Carballo (2018) and Page 4 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Murray, Lombardi, Seely, and Gerdes (2014) point out that this training not only improves teaching practice and faculty' own attitudes, but also directly benefits students. In this sense, Rouse (2008) states that faculty members should have knowledge related to different teaching strategies, disability and the needs that students may have, how students learn and how to monitor their learning, classroom organisation and management, finding external support, identifying and assessing difficulties, and even knowledge of the legislative and political context. With regard to design, this dimension includes all the considerations that faculty take into account when planning their faculty projects in order to make them accessible. Sometimes the rigidity of the curricula and study programmes can be a barrier for students with disabilities (Meyer, Rose, and Gordon 2014). A proactive approach to designing study programmes would help to eliminate this rigidity. In this context, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) becomes especially relevant. Teaching should be designed based on principles of UDL (which will be outlined later in the paper), prior to classroom practice, fully considering diversity, in order to prevent every student from being left out, thus allowing and guaranteeing accessibility and participation for all students (CAST 2018; Hromalik, Myhill, and Carr 2020; Seale, Colwell, Coughlan, Heiman, Kaspi-Tsahor, and Olenik-Shemesh 2020). The last dimension included in the framework of analysis of inclusive pedagogy refers to actions, that is, those affective, emotional and teaching-learning strategies put into practice in the development of faculty projects. From this approach, as from constructivism (Cubero 2005; Vigotsky 1978), students are conceived as the protagonists of their own learning, and faculty members as guides and mediators. Page 5 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only There are few studies that focus on analysing how faculty work in inclusive teaching practices. The evidence found indicates that these faculty members are characterised by empathy, closeness, flexibility, accessibility and sensitivity to the needs of all their students (Sánchez-Díaz and Morgado 2021; Stein 2014). In terms of the development of teaching practice, the affective and emotional component stands out in them. Authors such as Lubicz-Nawrocka and Bunting (2019) indicate that relationships based on closeness and trust with students promote feelings of belonging in them. Inclusive faculty members tend to use and develop active pedagogies and methodologies with a focus on student learning and participation. In short, inclusive faculty members implement many of the principles underpinning effective learning, such as promoting the participation and active role of students, using a variety of media to provide subject content and employing constructivist approaches to learning (Hofstädter-Thalmann, Rotgans, Aybar, and Nordquist 2022) They are also characterised by the use of diverse methodologies, consider different assessment systems and make adjustments to educational materials to respond to students' needs (Sandoval, Morgado, and Doménech 2020; Cotán, Aguirre, Morgado, and Melero 2021; Lorenzo-Lledó, Lorenzo, Lledó, and Pérez-Vázquez 2020; Yvonne, Tikhonova, Gagnon, Battalova, Mayer, Krupa, Lee, Nimmon, and Jarus 2020). In this regard, Kioko and Makoelle (2014) and Reupert, Hemmings, and Connor (2010) emphasise that inclusive faculty are characterised by developing flexible educational practices, providing their students with materials and resources to support their learning, presenting subject content through different channels and in an accessible way, using different methodologies and teaching techniques to respond to the needs of all their students. Page 6 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only This work aims to study the experiences of university faculty who design and develop their teaching programmes based on inclusive pedagogy, in order to be able to offer examples of good practice to faculty on how to develop inclusive pedagogy. Specifically, the aim is to achieve the following objectives: (1) to discover the beliefs of inclusive faculty about disability and the reasons that lead them to respond to the needs of students with disabilities; (2) to analyse the knowledge of faculty about inclusive education and disability in the university context; (3) to find out the aspects that faculty take into account in the design of their teaching programmes to make them inclusive; and (4) to examine the actions that faculty implement in their classrooms to meet the diversity and needs of students with disabilities. Method This paper is part of a larger research project entitled "title and reference removed for anonymous review", which is focused on the beliefs, knowledge, designs and actions of faculty members who carry out inclusive practices. The biographical-narrative method was used to give a voice to inclusive faculty previously identified by students with disabilities. Initially, we requested the collaboration with colleagues with knowledge and experience based in the Disability Support Services (DSS) of the participating universities, who contacted the students with disabilities to inform them about the project. The students who agreed to participate were asked to name the faculty members who had facilitated their inclusion during their time at the university. To this end, they were provided with a set of criteria that these faculty members had to meet (Moriña, Cortés-Vega, and Molina 2015): they believe in the possibilities of all students; they facilitate learning processes; their teaching is active, using different methodological teaching strategies; they show concern Page 7 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only for their students' learning; they show flexibility, with a willingness to help; they motivate students; they maintain close relationships and favour interactions between students; they make you feel that you are important, that you are one more in the classroom; they allow students to participate in the class and build knowledge together; the communication they maintain with you and your classmates is horizontal (rather than hierarchical). In addition, the snowball technique (Dusek, Yurova, and Ruppel 2015) was used. Specifically, different members of the university community (faculty members, students and other agents) were asked to inform students with disabilities that they knew about the project. Participants A total of 65 faculty members who taught in the faculty of Educational Sciences at 10 Spanish universities were contacted. Finally, 42 faculty members from 6 Spanish universities (3 in Andalusia, 2 in the Community of Valencia and 1 in Madrid) participated. The participants were selected exclusively by students with disabilities. Regarding the profile of these faculty members, 17 (40.5%) were men and 25 (59.5%) were women. In terms of age, they ranged from 33 to 59 years old, with a mean age of 41.2 years. The participants had an average of 15.8 years of teaching experience, ranging from 7 to 32 years. All participants had previous experience with students with disabilities. The Spanish university context Since the creation of the European Higher Education Area, official university degrees are divided into Undergraduate Studies (4 years) and Postgraduate Studies: Master's Degrees (1-2 years) and Doctoral Studies (3-4 years). Page 8 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only addressing the learning needs of all students, thereby reducing any possible exclusion in the teaching-learning process. “I believe that inclusive education is about responding to diversity and educational needs, at all levels and for successful learning. That would be inclusive education: the response to all types of students in order for them to achieve their objectives” (Faculty 35). "Education should reach out to all students. It must offer the same opportunities for everyone, that everyone has the same possibilities to acquire knowledge of a subject - or whatever they are doing - and to reach their full potential" (Faculty 42) The rest of the participants either did not know the term, did not provide an accurate definition, or had a misconception of the concept of inclusive education. "Well, I've never really heard of it. I understand that it refers to integrating students with disabilities, but I'm telling you, it's not the area I've worked in" (Faculty 25). Regarding the participants' knowledge about disability and the types of disability, most of them had very general knowledge about it, either because they had had previous experience with students with disabilities, or because they had received training and information on this issue. Some faculty also had more knowledge about diversity than about disability. "Well, I don't know anything beyond the different types of disabilities, that is, physical disability, intellectual disability, what I call psychosocial disability, psychological disability, the types of disabilities that we saw in the course and how to react to disability, but yes, I believe I still know less than I think I know" (Faculty 7). Page 15 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only "I start from the notion that there is no such thing as a person with a disability, but that all of us have a certain condition of diversity. Thus, there are people who need some reinforcement in certain spaces, areas, teaching methodology, assessment, etc., and other people who also need it in other ways. Maybe they have some difficulties that year, or they have health problems" (Faculty 12). Some participants admitted that they had no specific knowledge about disability and its types. Some of them even had misconceptions or very superficial conceptions about the concept. "I think I am totally ignorant and, many times, I am afraid to say the word disability, because I don't know if it is a disability or if I am saying something wrong, because, I tell you, I am ignorant. I don't have a clear concept. [...] I understand that there are two types: intellectual and physical. But, I tell you, I don't know" (Faculty 2). Finally, with regard to knowledge about the needs or support required by students with disabilities, approximately half of the faculty were aware of some of the needs of these students and the possible support available in the university context. In addition, some faculty indicated that the key to the inclusion of these students was a positive attitude on the part of the faculty, rather than specific knowledge of these issues. "At the institutional level, there is a diversity service, a disability service, a legal service, a psychological service, the equality unit... there are a series of mechanisms in place for situations that produce inequality. And within the classroom, well, whatever the students tell you they need at that moment" (Faculty 12). Page 16 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only "There are times when they don't need anything that another classmate doesn't need. They need an accessible faculty member, who explains things they don't understand, who explains and reaches the students" (Faculty 29). "The main support is your understanding, once you are understanding... Your support, your attitude toward them, right? (Faculty 23). Finally, the rest of the faculty did not know what needs students with disabilities might have or what support or help they could count on. "For what I know very little about, I tell you, what I did at the time was to find my own way and try to get help. The University includes it in its statutes but I don't know how it is materialised" (Faculty 9). What are the considerations that inclusive faculty take into account in their subject design? The participants referred to some of the considerations they took into account in the design of their subjects in order to make them inclusive. Most participants saw their planning as dynamic and open-ended, and thus changeable both before and during the course. However, some faculty indicated that they had no possibility to modify the planning of their subjects because it was already determined by the coordinators or by the faculty teams who had previously taught the subjects. "The guide at my university is standardised; there are specific regulations, there are numbered headings, they are filled in. Then there are headings in which we can intervene a little more, such as the contents, and we have to share them with our colleagues in the department. Therefore, faculty guides tend to be very generic" (Faculty 13). Page 17 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Specifically, among the aspects to which they paid most attention before starting the course, they highlighted the importance of contemplating university regulations and clearly stating the contents and competences to be achieved. The participants pointed out that they made an effort to include in the teaching plan all the information related to learning content and its practical application, activities, methodology, timetable, assessment systems and possible adjustments to be made to respond to the particular needs of the students. "I start from the standards, i.e., the objectives and competences to be achieved. Then I try to design my work proposal, that is, organisation, methodology, assessment... in a way that it accommodates all students regardless of their circumstances and characteristics. Participatory methodology, combining various ways of working... every year I try to improve, update, bring in new material, references..." (Faculty 29). In particular, these faculty members paid special attention to ensuring that their subject designs were open and flexible, that the information was clear and detailed, and that it was adapted to the degree programme and to the characteristics of the students taking their subject. They also stressed the importance of the faculty's planning being sensitive to the emotional and motivational aspects of the students. "Two points: one, to create scenarios that are open enough to allow us to develop the projects we want to do. Two, to give us time to relate our proposals to the students' interests. The programme is at the heart of the subject design" (Faculty 18). "That they know what is known about the subject, that they can access the knowledge in the most agile, fast and educational way possible. I also need students Page 18 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only to feel that they are the protagonists of the learning process and that there is a continuous evaluation process, continuous feedback" (Faculty 24). How do faculty members address the diversity and needs of students with disabilities? The fourth objective of this study was to find out how inclusive faculty worked in the classroom. The results obtained allow us to describe how the faculty behaved in the classroom with their students and the methodologies they used to teach. With regard to teaching behaviour, the results indicate that these inclusive faculty members showed a lot of enthusiasm when teaching, fostered motivation and curiosity in their students and used humour to generate optimism in their classrooms. They were also respectful, trusting, approachable and accessible to their students. They also strived to be a role model for their students and to provide them with active communication and continuous feedback. "If you are passionate about what you do, they get infected immediately" (Faculty 39). "Everything is based on respect. Positively reinforce any proposal, thank them for their participation, always try to give them feedback on what they do..." (Faculty 30). "Look, there is a simple strategy, like trying to get along with the student, respecting them and being patient with them. Learn the students' names; it's amazing how things change. If you manage to create that atmosphere, then the learning is more likely to flow" (Faculty 22). The faculty understood that learners have an active role in the teaching and learning process. This led them to work in the classroom through various methodological strategies, such as the use of debates, applied content, team work, etc., and to use participatory Page 19 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only methodologies, such as Cooperative Learning, Peer Learning, Interactive Lessons, Project- Based Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Flipped Classroom, Gamification, etc. "I really like cooperative learning with students, and it works very well for me, as well as working on educational coaching, which is related to conflict resolution. I also like to listen to the students and that they participate in the teaching processes, as its protagonists, and the faculty is the one who guides them" (Faculty 6). Finally, it should be noted that the participating faculty generally had a positive attitude toward making reasonable adjustments in the classroom to meet the needs of their students. "I am strongly in favour of curricular adaptations because, in my opinion, if some of the contents cannot be seen by a student with a disability in the same way as another without disabilities, this student with a disability does not have the same opportunities to pass the exam. This applies to all subjects" (Faculty 42). Discussion and conclusions Inclusive pedagogy is an alternative scenario for organising learning in a way that it welcomes all learners. Its configuration in four dimensions -beliefs, knowledge, designs and actionsallows approaching educational inclusion from an integral and holistic perspective, making it possible to understand all those issues that, to a greater or lesser extent, facilitate inclusive educational processes in the classroom. This study sheds light on how inclusive pedagogy is developed in the context of higher education. The first aim of this study was to understand inclusive faculty's beliefs about disability and the reasons why they respond to the needs of students with disabilities. The results indicate that most of the faculty member had a conception of disability that is linked either to the social model or to Page 20 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only inclusive education approaches. In a previous study by Martins, Borges, and Gonçalves (2018), it was found that the majority of the faculty viewed disability from a medical model. However, the data from the present study suggest that changes are occurring in the way people with disabilities are being welcomed in the university context, and that faculty are beginning to show more positive attitudes toward students with disabilities (Benkohila, Elhoweris, and Efthymiou 2020; Lipka, Khouri, and Shecter-Lerner 2020). The reasons for faculty responding to the needs of their students with disabilities are very diverse. The reasons found include compliance with university regulations, their teaching and research profile, and their previous experience with people with different types of disabilities. Regarding this last reason, the faculty members involved in this study have had experiences with students with visible (physical, visual, etc.) and non-visible (autism, mental health disorders, etc.) disabilities. In relation to the group of students with non-visible disabilities, it is important to bear in mind that these students tend not to disclose their disability for fear of social rejection, a situation that prevents them from accessing the supports they need (Nolan and Gleeson 2017). The fact of having previous experience with people with disabilities is linked to an increase in faculty members’ sensitivity and empathy, and correlates positively with the development of positive attitudes towards students with disabilities (Alghazo 2008). This last issue is particularly important for the participating faculty members, as they believe that having a positive attitude towards students with disabilities increases their motivation and interest in learning. These findings are supported by Benkohila, Elhoweris, and Efthymiou (2020) and Moriña (2019), who argue that positive faculty attitudes have great benefits for students' learning, especially for students with disabilities, such as improved academic performance and increased interest and motivation to study. Page 21 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only The second aim of this study was to analyse the faculty's knowledge of inclusive education, disability and types of disability, and the needs or support that students with disabilities may require at university. The results reveal that the majority of participants had scarce or very superficial knowledge about inclusive education, disability and types of disability. In general, the knowledge they had on these issues came from their previous experience with people with disabilities or was closely related to their teaching and research profile. An interesting finding is that some faculty members defined disability in terms of diversity, understanding that every human being is different and unique and, therefore, individual differences should be conceived as opportunities and not as problems, as Sapon- Shevin (2013) states. Through their previous experience with people with disabilities or their training, half of the participating faculty were aware of some of the needs and supports that students with disabilities may require. The other half had no such knowledge. This lack of disability-related knowledge has been found in similar studies with inclusive university faculty from other fields (Carballo, Aguirre, and López-Gavira 2021; Carballo, Orozco, and Cortés-Vega 2021), which indicates that the need for training in disability is an issue to be considered. In the face of this lack of specific knowledge, the faculty emphasised that what is really important is to show a positive attitude and to consider that it is generally not necessary to make major adjustments to meet the needs of these students. This is supported by Sánchez-Díaz (2021) and Mbuvha (2019), who argue that the adjustments needed by these students are usually related to access to the curriculum, without the need for major accommodation to their subjects or the physical environment. Page 22 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Two main considerations can be drawn from these results. The first is related to the idea that inclusive pedagogy can be developed without having very specific knowledge about disability. The second consideration suggests that specific training on disability would facilitate the practice of inclusive pedagogy, as it would allow faculty members to be aware of the needs that these students may require and to offer the support they need. If we want higher education to become more inclusive in the near future, university faculty in all subject areas should be trained in disability (Rouse 2008) and on how to develop teaching practices based on inclusive pedagogy. In this line, Lombardi, Murray, and Gerdes (2011), Carballo, Aguirre, and López-Gavira (2021) and Murray, Lombardi, Seely, and Gerdes (2014), state that training on disability improves the teaching practice and attitude of faculty, which has a direct impact on all students. The third objective of this study was to find out what aspects faculty members take into account in the design of their subjects in order to make them inclusive. The results show that the inclusive faculty members designed their subjects in such a way that the curriculum was open and dynamic, including information on the content, activities, calendar, methodology and assessment presented concisely and clearly in faculty guides and projects. In this line, Spratt and Florian (2015) state that the practice of inclusive pedagogy requires careful decision-making based on subject knowledge and teaching processes, thus ensuring that all students participate in them, without exclusion. The fact that the subjects were designed to be flexible made it easier for the faculty to reflect and make decisions and adjustments, considering the compliance with university regulations and the characteristics of all their students, with no exceptions. This is directly in line with the principles of UDL, which provides students with different alternatives for access, representation, and participation, thus recognising the Page 23 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only different ways in which students learn (CAST 2018). In this sense, the training of faculty on UDL and, specifically in the university environment, on Universal Instructional Design (UID), would favour the design of programmes, curricula, and accessible materials for the learning of all students -including those with disabilitywithout the need for major additional adjustments (Carballo, Morgado, and Cortés-Vega 2021; Lombardi, Vukovic, and Sala-Bars 2015), such as making work deadlines more flexible, extending the time allowed for assessment tests, providing adapted material, etc. Inclusive faculty members consider their students as the true protagonists of the learning process (Huber 2008), as proposed by constructivism (Cubero 2005; Vygostky 1978). Thus, faculty members strive to consider in their designs, in addition to the active role of learners, relevant issues such as emotional and motivational aspects that are intervening in the quality of their learning (Booker and Campbell-Whatley 2018). In short, in a context where students feel understood, respected, welcomed and safe, they develop more and better learning (Booker and Campbell-Whatley 2018). Finally, the last aim of this paper was to examine the actions that faculty members take to promote inclusion. It was found that the attitude of the faculty toward their students was one of the fundamental keys to developing an inclusive pedagogy. In line with previous studies (Sánchez-Díaz and Morgado 2021; Thomas 2016), these faculty members are characterised by being enthusiastic, respectful and accessible. They are faculty who generate a climate of trust in their classrooms, making use of humour and encouraging their students' motivation and curiosity to learn. They also strive to provide active communication and continuous feedback to their students and to be a point of reference for them. In this sense, Stein (2014) highlights the role played by the human and personal characteristics of the faculty in the academic success of students. Aguirre, Carballo, and Page 24 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Hitch, D., S. Macfarlane, and C. Nihill. 2015. “Inclusive pedagogy in Australian universities: A review of current policies and professional development activities.” The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 6 (1): 135-145. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v6i1.254 Hofstädter-Thalmann, E., J. Rotgans, N. Aybar, and J. Nordquist. 2022. “Effective Learning in Virtual Conferences: The Application of Five Principles of Learning.” Journal of European CME 11 (1): 1-9. doi:10.1080/21614083.2021.2019435 Hromalik, C. D., W. N. Myhill, and N. R. Carr. 2020. "All Faculty Should Take This: A Universal Design for Learning Training for Community College Faculty.” TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 64 (1): 91-104. doi:10.1007/s11528-019-00439-6 Hsiao, F., S. Burgstahler, T. Johnson, D. Nuss, and M. Doherty. 2019. “Promoting an Accessible Learning Environment for Students with Disabilities via Faculty Development (Practice Brief).” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 32 (1): 91-99. Huber, G. L. 2008. “Aprendizaje activo y metodologías educativas.” Revista de Educación: 59-81. Huguet, C., J. Pearse, L. F. Noè, D. M. Valencia, N. Castillo, A. Jiménez, and M. A. Patiño. 2020. “Improving the motivation of students in a large introductory geoscience course through active learning.” Journal of Geoscience. Education 68 (1): 20–32. doi:10.1080/10899995.2019.1588489 Kioko, V., and T. Makoelle, T. 2014. “Inclusion in Higher Education: Learning Experiences of Disabled Students at Winchester University.” International Education Studies 7 (6): 106-116. doi:10.5539/ies.v7n6p106 Page 31 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Lipka, O., M. Khouri, and M. Shecter-Lerner. 2020. “University Faculty Attitudes and Knowledge about Learning Disabilities.” Higher Education Research and Development 39 (5): 982-996. doi:10.1080/07294360.2019.1695750 Lombardi, A., B. Vukovic, and I. Sala-Bars. 2015. “International Comparisons of Inclusive Instruction among College Faculty in Spain, Canada, and the United States.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 28 (4): 447-460. Lombardi, A., C. Murray, and H. Gerdes. 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. doi:10.1037/a0024961 Lorenzo-Lledó, A., G. Lorenzo, A. Lledó, and E. Pérez-Vázquez. 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. doi:10.3926/jotse.887 Lubicz-Nawrocka, T., and K. Bunting. 2019. “Student perceptions of teaching excellence: an analysis of student-led teaching award nomination data.” Teaching in Higher Education 24 (1): 63-80. doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1461620 Martins, H., M. Borges, and T. Gonçalves. 2018. “Attitudes towards inclusion in higher education in a Portuguese university.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (5): 527-542. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1377299 Mbuvha, T. 2019. “Kinds of Support Offered by the Disability Unit to Students with Disabilities at Institutions of Higher Learning in South Africa: A Case Study of the University of Venda.” Journal of Student Affairs in Africa 7 (2): 57–73. doi:10.24085/jsaa.v7i2.3825 Page 32 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Meyer, A., D. H. Rose, and D. Gordon. 2014. “Universal Design for Learning: Theory & Practice.” Wakefield: CAST Professional Publishing. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. “Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.” California: SAGE Publications. Moriña, A. 2019. “The Keys to Learning for University Students with Disabilities: Motivation, Emotion and Faculty-Student Relationships.” PLoS One 14 (5): 1–15, e0215249. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0215249 Moriña, A., and I. Orozco. 2021. “Spanish faculty members speak out: Barriers and aids for students with disabilities at university.” Disability & Society 36 (2): 159-178. doi:10.1080/09687599.2020.1723495 Moriña, A., and R. Carballo. 2018. “Profesorado Universitario y educación inclusiva: respondiendo a sus necesidades de formación.” Psicologia Escolar e Educacional 22 (Núm. Especial): 87–95. doi:10.1590/2175-35392018053 Moriña, A., M. D. Cortés-Vega, and V. M. Molina. 2015. “What if we could imagine the ideal faculty? Proposals for improvement by university students with disabilities.” Teaching and Teacher Education 52: 91-98. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.008 Moriña, Anabel, ed. 2021. Enseñando con metodologías inclusivas en la Universidad. De la teoría a la práctica [Teaching with inclusive methodologies at university. From theory to practice]. Madrid: Narcea. Murray, C., A. Lombardi, J. R. Seely, and H. Gerdes. 2014. “Effects of an Intensive Disability-Focused Training Experience on University Faculty Self-Efficacy.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 27 (2): 179-193. Page 33 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Nolan, C., and C.I. Gleeson. 2017. “The transition to employment: The perspectives of students andgraduates with disabilities.” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 19 (3): 230–244. doi:10.1080/15017419.2016.1240102 Organic Law 4/2007, April 12, on Universities [Ley Orgánica 4/2007, de 12 de abril, de universidades]. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 89, de 13 de abril de 2007, 16241- 16260. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2007-7786 Reupert, A., B. Hemmings, and J. Connor. 2010. “Do We Practice What We Preach? The Teaching Practices of Inclusive Educators in Tertiary Settings.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 22 (2): 120-132. Riddell, S., T. Tinklin, and A. Wilson. 2005. “Setting the scene. Disabled students and multiple policy innovations in higher Education.” In Disabled Students in Higher Education: Perspectives on widening access and changing policy, edited by S. Riddell, T. Tinklin and A. Wilson, 1-20. Abingdon: Routledge. Rouse, M. 2008. “Developing inclusive practice: A role for teachers and teacher education.” Education in the North 16 (1): 6-13. Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013, of 29 November, approving the Consolidated Text of the General Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and their Social Inclusion. [Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2013, de 29 de noviembre, por el que se Aprueba el Texto Refundido de la Ley General de Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad y de su Inclusión Social]. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 289, de 3 de diciembre de 2013, 95635–95673. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rdlg/2013/11/29/1/dof/spa/pdf Sánchez-Díaz, M.N. 2021. “Ajustes razonables en la universidad. Creencias, prácticas y dificultades para llevarlos a cabo desde la voz de docentes inclusivos”. Revista de Fomento Social (299): 60-89. doi:10.32418/rfs.2021.299.4581 Page 34 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Sánchez-Díaz, M.N. and B. Morgado, B. 2021. “Docentes universitarios inclusivos: Qué les caracteriza y cómo conciben la discapacidad”. Siglo Cero 52 (1): 27-43. doi:10.14201/scero20215212743 Sandoval, M., B. Morgado, and A. Doménech. 2020. “University students with disabilities in Spain: faculty beliefs, practices and support in providing reasonable adjustments.” Disability & Society 36 (5): 730-749. doi:10.1080/09687599.2020.1751078 Sapon-Shevin, M. 2013. “La inclusión real: Una perspectiva de justicia social.” Revista de Investigación en Educación 11 (3): 71-85. Seale, J., C. Colwell, T. Coughlan, T., Heiman, D. Kaspi-Tsahor, and. D. Olenik-Shemesh. 2020. “Dreaming in colour: disabled higher Education students’ perspectives on improving design practices that would enable them to benefit from their use of technologies.” Education and Information Technologies 26: 1687–1719 doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10329-7 Spratt, J., and L. Florian. 2015. “Inclusive pedagogy: From learning to action. Supporting each individual in the context of ‘everybody’.” Teaching and Teacher Education 49: 89–96. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.006 Stein, K. F. 2014. “Experiences of College Students with Psychological Disabilities: The Impact of Perceptions of Faculty Characteristics on Academic Achievement.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 26 (1): 55–65. doi:10.1007/s11162-020-09595-8 Stentiford, L., and G. Koutsouris. 2020. “What are inclusive pedagogies in higher education? A systematic scoping review.” Studies in Higher Education: 1-17. doi:10.1080/03075079.2020.1716322 Page 35 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Thomas, L. 2016. “Developing Inclusive Learning to Improve the Engagement, Belonging, Retention, and Success of Students from Diverse Groups.” In Widening Higher Education Participation, edited by M. Shah, A. Bennett, and E. Southgate, 135–159. Oxford: Elsevier. United Nations. 2015. “Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development”. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/L.1&Lang=E Universia Foundation. 2021. “Discapacidad y Universidad. V Estudio sobre el grado de inclusión del sistema universitario español respecto de la realidad de las personas con discapacidad.” https://www.fundacionuniversia.net/content/dam/fundacionuniversia/pdf/estudios/V %20Estudio%20Universidad%20y%20Discapacidad%202019- 2020%20%20(Accesible).pdf Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. “In Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes”, edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman, 79- 91. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Weedon, E., and S. Riddell. 2016. “Higher education in Europe: widening participation.” In Widening higher education participation. A global perspective, edited by M. Shah, A. Bennett, and E. Southgate, 49-61. Waltham: Elsevier. Yvonne, L., J. Tikhonova, M. J. Gagnon, A. Battalova, Y. Mayer, T. Krupa, M. Lee, L. Nimmon, and T. Jarus. 2020. “Disabled healthcare professionals’ diverse, embodied, and socially embedded experiences.” Advances in Health Sciences Education 25: 111–129. doi:10.1007/s10459-019-09912-6 Page 36 of 36 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdso Email: [email protected] Disability & Society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60