Analysis of the voices of faculty members carrying out inclusive practices using ICT

129 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 Analysis of the Voices of Faculty Members Carrying out Inclusive Practices Using ICT María Nieves Sánchez-Díaz1, Víctor Hugo Perera2, Anabel Moriña3 1 University of Seville, Faculty of Education, Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, ESP-41018 Seville, Spain, [email protected] 2 University of Seville, Faculty of Education, Department of Teaching and Organization of Education, ESP-41013 Seville, Spain, [email protected] 3 University of Seville, Faculty of Education, Department of Teaching and Organization of Education, ESP-41013 Seville, Spain, [email protected] Annotation. This qualitative study explores the experiences of 119 faculty members who implement inclusive practices using ICTs in their classrooms. The results show the diverse materials and resources that they use to present content to students, the ways to facilitate the resources available to students, and the moment they make these materials and resources available to them. Conclusions present the conditions that determine the pedagogical use of technological resources by faculty to facilitate students’ inclusion. Keywords: blended learning, accessibility, disability, higher education, ICT, inclusive education, faculty members. Introduction In recent years, information and communication technologies (ICT) have had a direct impact on education. University education has not remained oblivious to the digital revolution (Zimmermann et al., 2019), and has implemented various actions to adapt its teaching system to the current reality (Campbell et al., 2020). In addition, the situation produced by the COVID-19 health emergency has further highlighted the need to use technologies and to know how they influence learning processes (Bong & Chen, 2021). In the specific case of Spain, the Universitic 2020 report highlights the provision of computer equipment to Spanish universities, the creation of IT services to support teaching, ISSN 1392-0340 (Print) ISSN 2029-0551 (Online) https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2022.146.7 Pedagogika / Pedagogy 2022, t. 146, Nr. 6, p. 129–147 / Vol. 146, No. 6, pp. 129–147, 2022 130 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 the incorporation of multimedia resources in face-to-face teaching, and the increase in online training in face-to-face universities. These initiatives favour accessibility and enable the personalisation of the learning experience (Gómez, 2021), which is beneficial for all students, especially those with disabilities, whose presence in Spanish universities has increased in recent years. National and international organisations have proposed various actions to face this challenge. Thus, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), through the promotion of the Digital Education Action Plan (European Commission, 2018), proposes the development of a digital education system, where, through the use of ICT, the quality of teaching-learning processes is improved from a perspective of inclusion and accessibility. In Spain, the latest Status Report on Educational Technologies in Spanish Universities (FOLTE, 2018) states that Spanish universities have a high degree of implementation of educational technologies, and those various strategies are being implemented to ensure universal access to ICT educational services, regardless of the resources, networks, or capabilities of users. This impact of ICT on Higher Education allows university teaching staff to have a wide range of digital educational materials and resources at their disposal, which can be translated into learning opportunities for students (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2010). Although several studies affirm that technological resources benefit all students (Edyburn, 2011; McMahon & Walker, 2019), few studies have focused on the use and effectiveness of these media in the university context, as well as on the impact they have on the learning of students with disabilities (Aquino & BuShell, 2020; Cabaleiro-Cerviño & Vera, 2020). Therefore, this paper analyses the voices of faculty members who carry out inclusive practices using information and communication technology in their teaching practices and how this impacts the learning of all students, especially those with disabilities. Use of technological and conventional resources in higher education In the university context, the incorporation of emerging technologies such as augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and robotics (McMahon & Walker, 2019), together with the fact that today’s students belong to the so-called Net Generation (Saunders & Gale, 2012), requires a transformation in the way in which the teaching-learning process is developed (Bagur-Femenías et al., 2020). This new educational reality requires a response to the diversity of students studying at university, promoting inclusive learning that guarantees the participation of all students, without exceptions. To this end, blended learning, which combines the use of elements of face-to-face teaching with technological elements (Aiello & Willem, 2004; Porter et al., 2014) and is used in traditional classroom environments, is presented as a beneficial option for students in general (Young & Nichols, 2017), and for students with disabilities in particular. As Seale et al. (2020) argue, technological media can mitigate the disadvantages that these students sometimes experience in their learning processes. 131 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 Several studies highlight written texts, manuals, traditional graphics, notes, and whiteboards among the most commonly used conventional resources in the classroom (Edyburn, 2011; Moon et al., 2012; Oliver & Herrington, 2001). However, the use of these materials and resources in classrooms is decreasing, as they can hinder students’ accessibility to content, especially for students with disabilities. Currently, technological resources are gaining prominence in the classroom. The technological materials and resources most frequently used by faculty members include: 1) PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, which help students to focus their attention on the content, making it easier for them to follow the lectures (Ferreira et al., 2018); 2) videos, which can be used to support teaching, to provide students with additional content or to strengthen their understanding of curricular content (Dinmore, 2019); 3) digital texts, which show students the content of the subject and allow them to manipulate it (Edyburn, 2011); and 4)virtual learning platforms (Perera et al., 2021). Virtual learning platforms deserve special attention as they can be used for various purposes, including learning, communication, administration, and faculty support (Chowdhury, 2020). Among their main uses, Chowdhury (2020) highlights their possibilities as virtual repositories, as means of communication between students and faculty members (through discussion forums, chats, announcements, and videoconferences) and as online grading and assessment systems, among other functions. The combined use of all these resources, both conventional and technological, allows personalising and tailoring teaching for students, thus avoiding the assumption that one size fits all (Edyburn, 2011). Impact of technological resources on student’s learning Blended learning provides substantial benefits for all learners, and especially for learners with disabilities. It allows adapting teaching to the different learning styles of students (Balakrishnan & Lay, 2016), facilitates accessibility to content (Edyburn, 2011; Young & Nichols, 2017), allows greater student’s participation (Aquino & BuShell, 2020), improves student’s communication when working in large classrooms, while allowing them to communicate in their own language, thus adjusting to the digital reality (Attwell & Hughes, 2010), and enables faculty members to offer readings in multiple formats (i.e., printed text, digital text in PDF, editable digital text, etc.). Regarding the content used in this type of training, the use of online text benefits learners with disabilities insofar as they can use screen readers to facilitate reading or manage and organise information with tools such as Microsoft Word’s AutoSummary (Edyburn, 2011). On the other hand, the use of video provides flexibility for learners as they can view them anytime, anywhere and on multiple devices. It also allows learners to rewind, slow down, and replay content when needed (Dinmore, 2019). Slide presentations can benefit all learners as long as they are properly designed and verified using PowerPoint’s accessibility checker (Fichten et al., 2019). 132 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 Regarding the learning environment, among the benefits of virtual learning platforms, Chowdhury (2020), Fichten et al. (2020) and Lightfoot (2004) highlight the following: a) they save faculty’ time and are environmentally friendly, as their use prevents unnecessary paper waste; b) they are intuitive, their use is usually simple and known by the educational community; c) they are accessible, as they give students the autonomy to view content on most electronic devices and from any location; and d) they allow faculty members to teach using more innovative teaching methodologies (i.e., flipped classroom). Despite the benefits that technological tools bring to university students’ learning, they can sometimes be a barrier for students with disabilities. Faculty members need to be trained in the accessibility and instructional use of technology, as it benefits all students and creates learning opportunities (Kent, 2015; Kumar & Owston, 2016; Regan et al., 2012). Accessibility to achieve more inclusive practices The effective inclusion of technologies in the teaching-learning process requires consideration of a number of issues to promote accessibility. Numerous authors point out some difficulties that students with disabilities may experience when using technological resources (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2022; Maboe, 2020; Rodrigo & Tabuenca, 2020). For example, videos shown in the classroom that are not subtitled or audio-described make access difficult for students with hearing or visual impairments (Seale et al., 2020; Youngblood et al., 2017). Regarding virtual learning platforms, if they are not accessible, they are unlikely to be inclusive. The main accessibility difficulties that virtual learning platforms may present include: 1) their design, which makes them difficult to use for students with disabilities, and 2) the inaccessibility of the presentations uploaded by faculty members (Seale et al., 2020), as they may contain elements (texts, tables, or graphics) that are not easily intelligible for these students. Therefore, accessibility requires planned actions on the part of the faculty. Thus, providing material in advance, either slides, notes, or manuals in digital or paper format, is one of the measures that contribute to favouring accessibility to the content (Cotán, 2014; Díez et al., 2008). In addition, many authors suggest that, to avoid the effort of making unnecessary adjustments during the development of subjects, courses should be designed in an accessible way before the start of the course (De Bie et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2011). In this context, technology is understood as accessible when everybody can perceive and understand the information presented for an equitable opportunity to succeed (Roberts et al., 2011). In this sense, accessibility is linked to the social model of disability (Oliver, 1990) and universal design for learning or UDL (CAST, 2018). From the social model of disability, it is conceived that it is the environment that creates barriers for people with disabilities and not the other way around. In Higher Education, from this model it is understood that, if a student with a disability cannot access the materials, the resources must be changed (Kumar & Widerman, 2014). UDL is a practical approach that encourages a 133 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 change in subject design and teaching methods to provide learning opportunities that accommodate all students from the outset (Hills et al., 2022; Seale et al., 2020). This translates into providing multiple means of communication, engagement and expression (Hromalik etal., 2021; Williams et al., 2016). Therefore, these principles of universal design can serve as a guide for making subjects more accessible, not only by making information available to learners in different ways (virtual learning platforms, email, print shops, etc.), but also by making the information used accessible, as well as offering different methods of presenting information (e.g. texts, visual graphic organisers, videos), or different formats and types of assessment, among others (Hromalik et al., 2019). In Spain, as in other countries, learning must be based on accessibility and UDL (Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013). However, in practice, studies conclude that most faculty members are not trained in this didactic approach and, consequently, do not apply it (Carballo et al., 2019; Heron et al., 2022). In this line, Seale (2014), points out the importance of faculty training to provide positive learning experiences and outcomes for students. To this end, she suggests that the content of such training should include technical accessibility issues; disability awareness, accessibility and equality; and design approaches related to UDL, among other issues. Training on these questions will contribute to the improvement of accessibility in university classrooms. The objectives of this study were: 1) to determine what materials and resources, both technological and conventional, are used by inclusive faculty to carry out their teaching, and how these influence learning; 2) to determine the means used by faculty members to make these resources and materials available to students; and 3) to analyse the moment at which the material is made available to students. Method The design of this study falls within the qualitative paradigm. The results of this study are part of a larger research project, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, the State Research Agency and the European Regional Development Fund (Ref. EDU2016-76587-R) and co-funded by the Regional Ministry of Economic Transformation, Industry, Knowledge and University of the Regional Government of Andalusia, within the ERDF Operational Programme 2014–2020 (Ref. US-1381423). This study focuses on what inclusive faculty members do and how and why they do it. This article analyses exclusively the inclusive actions of these faculty members in relation to the use of technological resources in the classroom as a complement to face-to-face teaching. The Spanish university context The faculty who participated in this study belonged to ten public universities in Spain. Following the distribution made by the EHEA, official university degrees are 134 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 divided into Undergraduate Studies (4 years) and Postgraduate Studies, which include Master’s Degrees (1–2 years) and Doctoral Degrees (3–5 years). All these degrees follow a teaching system that combines classroom teaching with the use of Learning Management Systems. In Spain, all public universities have Disability Support Services (DSS), and 19,910students with disabilities are currently enrolled in degree courses (Fundación Universia, 2021). The DSS are responsible for ensuring that these students have the necessary resources for the development of their learning process and advise academic staff on the reasonable adjustments to be made, where necessary. Participants A total of 119 faculty members from 10 Spanish universities, belonging to all subject areas, participated in this study. As for the selection of participants, they were nominated exclusively by students with disabilities. For this purpose, the collaboration of the DSS of the different participating universities was requested. The technical staff of these services contacted the students registered in their databases and provided them with information about the project so that they could propose, on a voluntary basis, those faculty members who carried out inclusive practices. To this end, they were provided with a set of criteria to be met by these participants (Moriña et al., 2015), which are: believes in the possibilities of all students; facilitates learning processes; their teaching is active, using different methodological teaching strategies; shows concern for their students’ learning; shows flexibility, with a willingness to help; motivates students; maintains close relationships and favours interactions between students; makes you feel that you are important, that you are one more in the classroom; allows students to participate in the class and build knowledge together; the communication they maintain with you and with your classmates is horizontal. Regarding the profile of the participants, of the total number of faculty members, 24 belonged to the area of Arts and Humanities (20.2%) (Faculty P1 to P24), 14 to Engineering and Sciences (11.8%) (P25 to P38), 16 to Health Sciences (13.4%) (P39 to P54), 25 to Social and Legal Sciences (21%) (P55 to P79), and 40 to Educational Sciences (33.6%) (P80 to P119). With respect to gender variables, 69 were male (58.3%) and 50 were female (41.7%). In relation to age, 108 faculty members were between 36 and 60 years old, 7 were under 35 years of age (7.8%) and four of them were over 60 years (4.4%). Regarding experience, most of the participants had more than 10 years of teaching experience (68.4%), with only 6 faculty members (6.2%) having less than 5 years of experience and 24 participants having between 5 and 10 years (25.4%). All faculty members had had some previous experience with students with disabilities during their teaching practice. Data collection instrument and procedure The study was carried out on the basis of an individual interview in which three main questions were explored: 1) Use of different materials or resources to present content to 135 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 students and their influence on students in general, and especially on students with disabilities, 2) Means used by faculty members to make educational materials and resources available to students, and 3) When these materials and resources are made available to students. The interviews were carried out by members of the research team who had been previously trained for this task. Most of them were conducted face-to-face (n = 89), while 18 participants were interviewed via Skype and 12 via telephone. The interviews lasted on average 90 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded and the faculty members gave written consent to the recording and use of the data for the purposes of the study. In addition, this study complied with the ethical requirements approved by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Government of Spain. Data analysis The information collected from the interviews was transcribed verbatim and processed through qualitative data analysis using an inductive system of categories and codes that allowed organising and making sense of the information collected (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Table 1 presents the categories and codes used for the development of this study. Table 1 Categories and Codes System Categories Subcategories Indicators (codes) Use of media and teaching resources Typology Conventional and technological resources (A1) Analogue and digital media (A2) Educational implications Participation, attention and motivation (B1) Adapting traditional training to digital reality (B2) Achievement of learning objectives (B3) Multimodal teaching (learning styles) (B4) Technological competence of learners (B5) Accessibility of content (B6) Access routes to the material Use of digital media Digital materials (technology platforms, email, collaborative virtual portfolios, etc.) (C1) Use of analogue media Printed materials (books, documents, etc.) (C2) Availability of materials Moments to share the material with learners At the beginning of the subject (D1) During the subject, at the beginning of the subject (D2) During the subject, at the end of the subject (D3) 136 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 Results The results focus on the use that faculty members make of the various technological and conventional resources used in their teaching practice. They also address the main reasons and educational purposes that justify the inclusion of these resources in their teaching activities and their impact on student’s learning. The means by which the materials were made available to students is also discussed. Finally, a description is given of when the participants considered it appropriate to make the resources and materials available to students. Diversity of technological and conventional resources for learning and participation Most of the participants in this study used a wide variety of resources in their classes. The diversity ranged from the most conventional to the most innovative resources (blackboards, printed books, audiovisual materials, texts, educational computer applications, etc.). Audiovisual material, videos, blackboard... Although when I have someone like Maria in class, I try not to use it, or to use it occasionally without it being a difficulty for her... texts as well, textbooks in some subjects (P17). In addition, all faculty members, except for six of them, used various analogue and digital media in their teaching practice. These media were mainly PowerPoint presentations, videos, images, texts (digital or printed) and even the traditional blackboard. I use a lot of media, because I believe that a picture is worth a thousand words. I use the virtual learning platform a lot, I use digital self-assessment systems with images and I would like to have these media in the classroom as well (P46). For the participants it was essential to make use of different technological resources for learning. Most of them explained that the diversity of technological resources allowed them to facilitate accessibility to learning content and thus to encourage student participation, adjusting to the needs of the students. They explained that students belonged to the “Net Generation” and, therefore, demanded active and participative classes, favouring learning more in line with the digital reality in which they live. I use different technological resources due to the diversity of the students and because they can be more effective for them, right? The digital aspect is very effective for them because they have it... It is, let’s say, the digital generation. And we are, in fact, in the digital age..., and so that’s what we feel more familiar with (P10). Another argument was related to faculty and student’s motivation. The participants felt that it did not benefit learning if class sessions were always approached in the same way. On the contrary, the use of different resources, both technological and conventional, in addition to facilitating accessibility, promoted motivation and attention. 137 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 A picture is sometimes worth a thousand words. It’s easier to understand something when they see it, that’s why we use videos. And then, when they practice it, that’s why we use role-playing and texts. The slides also help to fix their attention and help them understand what we are saying (P51). In addition, the faculty made use of this variety of resources because they felt that they promoted meaningful learning and contributed to the achievement of the subject objectives, as these could not be achieved with a single resource. Moreover, they thought that they could not teach without resources. Because if I don’t use all these resources, my subject cannot be taught. If we are talking about anatomy and the bone has to be imagined, well... I can’t... And nowadays, we have a lot of resources (P40). Another motivation for making use of various resources was related to learning styles. They explained that students learn differently. When they had different resources and approached the content through these resources, it made it easier to adjust to students’ learning styles. I use different resources because I understand that we don’t all learn in the same way. They have the right to choose how they want to learn. I am not the protagonist of this, I am the tool, I am a wrench, and whoever wants to, uses it (P110). Therefore, under this pedagogical conception, they understood that each student could obtain information through the resource with which he/she felt most comfortable and which was most appropriate at any given moment. Because I believe that the more senses we bring into play, the easier it is to get information. So, for example, they have the auditory and visual material, which, in many cases, as the PowerPoint presentation can be voiced, they have it (P88). On the other hand, they explained that technological resources allowed students to develop technological competence. This meant that students could learn how these resources work, favouring their use in future work contexts. I think it helps students to have that knowledge and use it in the future (P24). Finally, although only a minority of participants commented on it, the use of this variety of technological resources allowed the content of the subjects to be accessible. This implied that, when selecting the resources to be used in the classroom, faculty members had to take into account that, in addition to being available and accessible, these resources should be useful and practicable for everyone. I try to work with different materials and in different ways to cater for the most diverse situations I have in my classroom. I try to make sure that the videos I show in class are subtitled, I work with other types of audiovisual resources and if I have any need I also put subtitles and audio in voice, I put it in large letters so 144 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 disabilities. The case of Spain. Education and Information Technologies, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10639-022-10965-1 Ferreira, C. M., Santos, A. I., & Serpa, S. (2018). Electronic slideshow presentations in the higher education teaching and learning process. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(2), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i2.2818 Fichten, C., Jorgensen, M., Havel, A., King, L., Harvison, M., Lussier, A., & Libman, E. (2019). More than meets the eye: A Canadian comparative study on PowerPoint use among postsecondary students with and without disabilities. International Research in Higher Education, 4(2), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v4n2p25 Fichten, C., Olenik-Shemesh, D., Asuncion, J., Jorgensen, M., & Colwell, C. (2020). Higher education, information and communication technologies and students with disabilities: An overview of the current situation. In J. Seale (Ed) Improving digital practices in higher education: Challenges and new practices for inclusion (pp. 21–44). Palgrave. https://www.palgrave.com/ gp/book/9783030371241 FOLTE (2018). Informe de Situación de las Tecnologías Educativas en las Universidades [Status Report on Educational Technologies in Universities]. Crue Spanish Universities. https://www.crue.org/ wp-content/uploads/2020/02/FOLTE-Tecnolog%C3%ADas-Educativas-2018_VD.pdf Fundación Universia (2021). Discapacidad y Universidad. V Estudio sobre el grado de inclusión del sistema universitario español respecto de la realidad de las personas con discapacidad [Disability and University. V Study on the degree of inclusion of the Spanish university system with regard to the reality of people with disabilities]. https://www.fundacionuniversia.net/ content/dam/fundacionuniversia/pdf/estudios/V%20Estudio%20Universidad%20y%20 Discapacidad%202019-2020%20%20(Accesible).pdf Grasha, A.F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2010). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48(1), 2–10. https://doi. org/10.1080/87567550009596080 Gómez, J. (2021). UNIVERSITIC 2020. Análisis de la madurez digital de las Universidades Españolas [Analysis of the digital maturity of Spanish universities]. Crue Spanish Universities. https://tic.crue.org/publicaciones/universitic-2020/ Heron, L.M., Agarwal, R., Greenup, J., Attong, N., & Burke, S. L.(2022).Leveraging the Design Thinking Model to address campus accessibility challenges and assess perceptions of disability awareness.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603 116.2022.2041111 Hills, M., Overend, A., & Hildebrandt, S. (2022). Faculty perspectives on UDL: Exploring bridges and barriers for broader adoption in higher education.The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2022.1.13588 Hromalik, C.D., Myhill, W.N., & Carr, N.R. (2019). “All faculty should take this”: A Universal Design for Learning training for community college faculty. Tech Trends, 64, 91–104. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00439-6 145 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 Hromalik, C.D., Myhill, W.N., Ohrazda, C.A., Carr, N.R., & Zumbuhl, S.A. (2021). Increasing universal design for learning knowledge and application at a community college: The Universal Design for Learning academy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–16. https://doi. org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1931719 Kent, M. (2015). Disability and eLearning: Opportunities and barriers. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v35i1.3815 Kumar, K. L., & Wideman, M. (2014). Accessible by design: Applying UDL principles in a first year undergraduate course. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 125–147. https:// doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v44i1.183704 Kumar, K.L., & Owston, R. (2016). Evaluating e-learning accessibility by automated and studentcentered methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 263–283. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9413-6 Lightfoot, S. (2004). Can Blackboard help support politics students? Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences, 1(3), 169–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/ltss.1.3.169/0 Maboe, M.J. (2020). Comparison of students using electronic learning website of the University of South Africa. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 10(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJVPLE.2020010102 McMahon, D., & Walker, Z. (2019). Leveraging emerging technology to design an inclusive future with Universal Design for Learning. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 9(3), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.639 Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publishing. Moon, N.W., Todd, R.L., Morton, D.L., & Ivey, E. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Findings from research and practice for middle grades through university education. SciTrain: Science and Math for All. https://hourofcode.com/files/accommodating-students-with-disabilities.pdf Moriña, A., Cortés-Vega, M.D., & Molina, V.M. (2015). What if we could imagine the ideal faculty? Proposals for improvement by university students with disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.008 Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. MacMillan. Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2001). Teaching and learning online: A beginner’s guide to e-learning and e-teaching in higher education. Centre for Research in Information Technology and Communications, Edith Cowan University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237231240_a_beginner’s_ guide_to_e-learning_and_e-teaching_in_higher_education Perera, V.H., Moriña, A., Sánchez-Díaz, N., & Spinola-Elias, Y. (2021). Technological platforms for inclusive practice at university: A qualitative analysis from the perspective of Spanish faculty members. Sustainability, 13(9), 4755, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094755 Porter, W.W., Graham, C.R., Spring, K.A., & Welch, K.R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011 146 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 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 [Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013, of 29 November, which approves the Consolidated Text of the General Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and their Social Inclusion.]. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 289, de 3 de diciembre de 2013, pp. 95635 a 95673. https://www.boe.es/eli/ es/rdlg/2013/11/29/1/dof/spa/pdf Regan, K., Evmenova, A., Baker, P., Jerome, M., Spencer, K.V., Lawson, H., & Werner, T. (2012). Experiences of instructors in online learning environments: Identifying and regulating emotions. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. iheduc.2011.12.001 Roberts, J. B., Crittenden, L.A., & Crittenden. J. C. (2011). Students with disabilities and online learning: A cross-institutional study of perceived satisfaction with accessibility compliance and services. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. iheduc.2011.05.004 Rodrigo, C., & Tabuenca, B. (2020). Ecologías de aprendizaje en estudiantes online con discapacidades [Ecologies of learning in online students with disabilities]. Comunicar, 62, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.3916/C62-2020-05 Saunders, F.C., & Gale, A. W. (2012). Digital or didactic: Using learning technology to confront the challenge of large cohort teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01250.x Seale, J. (2014). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice. Routledge. Seale, J., Colwell, C., Coughlan, T., Heiman, T., Kaspi-Tsahor, D., & Olenik-Shemesh, D. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10329-7 Williams, S., Rooij, V., & Zirkle, K. (2016). Balancing pedagogy, student readiness and accessibility: A case study in collaborative online course development. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.001 Young, S., & Nichols, H. (2017). A reflexive evaluation of technology-enhanced learning. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1998 Youngblood, N.E., Tirumala, L.N., & Galvez, R.A. (2017). Accessible media: The need to prepare students for creating accessible content. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 73(3), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695817714379 Zimmermann, J., Happes, J., & Nadja, B. (2019). Transformation and continuity in urban space: The smartphone as a companion to digital teaching and learning processes in extracurricular learning settings. Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society, 11(2), 30–44. https:// doi.org/10.3167/jemms.2019.110202 147 Pedagogika / 2022, t. 146, Nr. 2 Dėstytojų, vykdančių inkliuzinę praktiką, naudojant IKT, nuomonių analizė María Nieves Sánchez-Díaz1, Víctor Hugo Perera2, Anabel Moriña3 1 Sevilijos universitetas, Pedagogikos fakultetas, Raidos ir pedagoginės psichologijos katedra, ESP-41018 Sevilija, Ispanija, [email protected] 2 Sevilijos universitetas, Edukologijos fakultetas, Mokymo ir ugdymo organizavimo katedra, ESP-41013 Sevilija, Ispanija, [email protected] 3 Sevilijos universitetas, Pedagogikos fakultetas, Mokymo ir ugdymo organizavimo katedra, ESP-41013 Sevilija, Ispanija, [email protected] Santrauka Vis labiau populiarėjančios švietimo technologijos, kaip papildoma tiesioginio mokymo priemonė, ir didėjantis neįgalių studentų skaičius universitetų auditorijose lemia mokymo ir mokymosi procesų pokyčius. Šiame straipsnyje analizuojami dešimties Ispanijos universitetų 119 dėstytojų, kurie savo mokyme taiko inkliuzinę praktiką, naudodami informacines ir komunikacines technologijas, pasisakymai. Tyrimas grindžiamas kokybinės paradigmos prielaidomis, atliekant pusiau struktūruotus individualius interviu. Rezultatai rodo, kad vaizdo įrašai, skaidrių prezentacijos, vaizdai ir skaitmeniniai tekstai yra dažniausiai tyrimo dalyvių naudojama mokymo medžiaga. Pagrindinė priemonė, kurioje dėstytojai pateikia medžiagą studentams, yra virtualioji platforma. Dauguma dėstytojų joje pateikia kursų medžiagą studentams prieš dėstydami mokymo turinį. Išvados rodo, kad dėstytojai deda daug pastangų, kad mokymo ir mokymosi procesas būtų prieinamas universiteto studentams, ypač studentams su negalia. Dėstytojai naudoja įvairias technologines priemones ir medžiagą, kad sukurtų naujas erdves studentų mokymuisi ir dalyvavimui, todėl technologinės priemonės tarnauja inkliuzijai ir sudaro palankias sąlygas mokymosi turinio prieinamumui. Esminiai žodžiai: mišrus mokymasis, prieinamumas, negalia, aukštasis mokslas, IKT, inkliuzinis ugdymas, dėstytojai. Gauta 2021 11 24 / Received 24 11 2021 Priimta 2022 07 14 Accepted 14 07 2022