INTRODUCTION

Since the Salamanca Statement (United Nations Educational, Science and Culture Organization, UNESCO, 1994) there have been changes in Education Systems related to inclusion with different levels of application and implementation depending on the country (Magumise & Sefotho 2020). It keeps open the debate on what we mean by inclusive education (Paseka & Schwab, 2020) and how to respond, through this principle, to the diversity of students who face informative, bureaucratic, architectural, learning, personal and social barriers, which derive from different educational needs and learning demands (García-González et al., 2021). In spite of responding exclusively to those students who are at greater risk of segregation, marginalization, or school dropout because of their special educational needs, inclusive education must be addressed to all people regardless of their cultural, social, biological, affective, intellectual or any other characteristics (Ainscow 2020; Echeita 2017).

Education policy commitments to the principles of inclusive education and their concretisation in the form of treaties or laws are worthless if they are not translated into real educational practices, and if schooling rules and procedures that facilitate exclusion and segregation of learners and do not provide truly individualised attention in the classroom are maintained. Educational and social exclusion will persist as long as there is no further recognition of all excluded people (Bartolomé et al., 2021) and the emergence of new groups with barriers resulting from differentiated social phenomena (Salmi & D’Addio, 2021), such as armed conflicts or natural disasters.

One of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG4) of the 2023 Agenda focuses on ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all (Ramos et al., 2021), including equal access for all men and women to quality technical, vocational, and higher education, including university education (UNESCO, 2017). University education must establish a balance between educational legislation, university legislation and legislation on disability, so that the very fact of implementing the social model of disability does not necessarily keep up with the development of university regulations, which can generate a situation of legal uncertainty for students and teachers, among other agents involved (Alcáin & Medina-García, 2017). Despite the benefits and support for this model (Collins et al., 2019), it still faces challenges such as the need to expand the variety and flexibility of university education, guarantee the quality and parity of the training offer, provide access to information, and create communication networks, and improve staff effectiveness.

The university and the inclusive education of people with functional diversity

Inclusion requires the development of actions and practices aimed at attending the diversity, building a sense of belonging and recognizing the value and dignity of all people (UNESCO, 2020). The universities’ mission is education, Research and contribution to society, the latter being an element closely linked to social inclusion (Campos, 2021). Hence the relevance of the culture of inclusion as one of the quality indicators in higher education.

Higher education provides an opportunity for social mobility, in face of unemployment and precariousness through prestige, recognition and economic and financial remuneration (Comité Español de Representantes de Personas con Discapacidad, CERMI, 2020). Students from vulnerable backgrounds face economic and social barriers to university access, and likely academic, educational and/or cultural difficulties ( Ramírez & Maturana, 2018; Salmi & D’Addio, 2021).

Increasing numbers of students with barriers to presence, participation, and learning attend universities around the world, which calls for reflection on the institutional policies, practices and structures that are promoted or ignored ( Araneda-Guirriman et al., 2017). Despite the

Despite the adjustments required of universities to provide room for students with disabilities, the fulfilment of their rights is conditioned by the degree of accessibility of educational environments, which has led to actions aimed at reducing physical or access barriers to the curriculum (Sandoval et al., 2020). However, most Spanish universities have been designed to receive non-disabled students this can be noticed both in the physical structures and in the curricular designs, methodologies, and training of teaching and administrative staff (García-González et al., 2021).

This paper focuses on analysing inclusion, specifically, university students’ perceptions of how inclusive policies (plans and programmes), cultures (values, shared beliefs) and practices (actions, such as ways of teaching, organising the classroom and assessing learning) are developed at the university (Fernández-Blázquez et al., 2022). To this end, the objectives are: (a) to deepen the students’ vision of the university and the processes of inclusion that take place in it (policies, cultures and practices) and (b) to identify the main factors that enhance and limit the configuration of the university as a space for student inclusion.

METHOD

A mixed study was carried out in three stages: a first quantitative stage, where an initial approach to the field of study was made, and a second and third qualitative stage, delving into the participants’ discourses on diversity and university inclusion. The scope of this study is not only to take advantage of the potential of mixed research (Stacciarini & Cook, 2015), but to give the qualitative perspective a primary character that is complemented by the secondary quantitative insights.

Participants

Students from the three universities of the Galician University System (University of A Coruña, University of Santiago de Compostela, and University of Vigo) participated in the research. The quantitative study involved 296 students ( n = 44 males, 14.9%; n = 252 females, 85.1%) aged between 18 and 60 years (M = 20.90; SD = 4.27); Degree in Early Childhood Education (n = 132, 44.4%), in Primary Education (n = 100, 33.7%), in Social Education (n = 35, 11.8%) and in Speech Therapy ( n = 30, 10.1%). For the qualitative study, 174 university students participated, of whom 130 were studying the Degree in Primary Education and 44 in Early Childhood Education at the three universities mentioned above.

Instruments and data collection

Data was collected during an academic year (Table 1) following the criteria from the Ethic Committee of the American Psychology Association (APA, 2017) regarding confidentiality, anonymity, respect for the opinions of the participants, voluntary participation, and the signing of informed consent.

In the Stage I the instrument that was used to collect quantitative data was the Scale of Perceptions about University Inclusion (SPUI). It is a 34 items tool that assess the inclusion culture, policies and practices through a 5-point Likert scale (0: no/never, 1: hardly ever, 2: sometimes, 3: usually, and 4: Yes/always). It was designed ad hoc by the researchers. The study of its psychometric properties (Losada-Puente et al., 2021) revealed an initial factor structure in six factors (building communities, establishing inclusive values, developing a centre for all, organising supports, organising learning and mobilising resources) that explained 52.04% of the variance. Subsequently, a structure composed of these six first-order factors was confirmed, grouped around three second-order factors: culture, policy and inclusive practices (χ2/gl = 1.494, CFI = .951, GFI = .871; RMR = .041, RMSEA = .041). The reliability of the instrument was excellent (α = .946; r = .868). In the present study, the instrument had excellent internal consistency (α = .951), as did its dimensions (α culture = .863; ɑ politics = .863; ɑ practice = .922).

Due to the health measures adopted in the institutions of the Galician University System, an interactive space was created (Stage II) through a forum for students to discuss inclusion in a targeted manner. In order to deepen the students’ appraisals of university inclusion, the technique selected was rapid online focus groups (Blake et al., 2021) (also called reflective essays by Rahiem et al., 2021). For this purpose, different sequential moments of reflection were proposed: intrapersonal (individual evaluations) and interpersonal (group evaluations resulting from the interactions between participants) by means of written word (Table 2):

Finally (Stage III), we delved into students’ personal perceptions on inclusion based on their university experience. Virtual semi-structured interviews were applied to a group of informants (6 women) who had also participated in Stage I. Moreover, participants also elaborated mind maps. The first technique was composed of eight questions related to the university-high school relationship, experiences in the institution, spaces, or training resources. For instance, they were asked: “How would you define the relationship between students and professors?”, “What do you think about competitiveness among university students?” or “Do you perceive your faculty as an inclusive environment? The mind maps, on the other hand, were free representations of their personal view of inclusion at university.

Data collection

The qualitative craft analysis was developed under the Miles and Huberman Model (Miles et al., 2013) in two stages: firstly, deductive and, secondly, inductive. Initially, three main categories were established deductively (culture, policies, and practices of inclusion), and later the researchers carried out a second inductive and transversal analysis where three thematic categories were identified. These themes make up the results of this work: perceptions of the university institution and inclusion, environments and spaces, and coexistence in the university.

In parallel to the qualitative analysis process, the SPUI data were studied by means of IBM SPSS 27 Statistical Package. Descriptive (central tendency and dispersion) and inferential analyses were carried out using parametric statistics (Student’s t-test). A confidence level of 95 (p < .05) was considered. The initial descriptive analyses served as a starting point to situate the interest of the study around the three main themes addressed in the focus groups and were subsequently useful to quantitatively support the participants’ discourse.

RESULTS

Preliminary results

From the initial analysis of the quantitative data (Table 3) it was found that, on average, students placed the level of inclusiveness at the university in the middle of the 0-4 scale (M = 2.68; SD = 0. 55); that is, only sometimes the University favours inclusive culture (M = 2.71; SD = 0.55), policy (M = 2.50; SD = 0.72) and practices (M = 2.48; SD = 0.71), so there is still room for improvement. Most items were placed in the category sometimes, although with a positive tendency towards usually, with exceptions placed in the category sometimes, with a negative tendency towards hardly ever.

In terms of inclusive culture, the establishment of inclusive values (M = 2.72; SD = 0.61) was highlighted, where there is usually agreement between university and professors in understanding diversity; however, it is only sometimes perceived that professors place great expectations on all students. Likewise, in community building (M = 2.70; SD = 0.63) it was noted that faculty and students usually treat each other with respect, but coordination between professors only sometimes occurs. Regarding the inclusive policy, there was a positive tendency towards considering that support is usually organised (M = 2.61; SD = 0.81); however, there was a tendency to consider that the University hardly ever is developed for all students (M = 2.3; SD = 0.79), especially regarding the support given to students when they join the University System or the organisation of learning groups so that students feel valued. Inclusion practices stood out positively in the organisation of learning (M = 2.48; SD = 0.71), above all in that sometimes and with a tendency to be usually, professors try to make students do things to the best of their ability. To a lesser extent, resources are mobilised (M = 2.37; SD = 0.85), with the resources that professors generate to support learning and participation being particularly noteworthy.

Students’ perception on university inclusion

As a starting point, the following mind map reflects the main thematic categories found around inclusion. They will be further explored below, reinforcing the participants’ discourse with quantitative information.

Although both qualitative and quantitative questions were oriented towards the university, participants made constant allusions to their previous educational stage. The perceived differences between the two institutions (University - High School) and in their own responses to inclusion (Table 4) lead the participants to state that, before starting their university studies, they had an idealised outlook; however, their current perception of the university reflects the absence of notable differences with high schools [“they exist, but university is not so different from a high school, it is an extension of it” (S 159)].

They referred high schools as a “home-like” institutions, conferring them characteristics of a familiar environment such as the personalised attention, close relationships, or the family spotlight. On the contrary, they perceive the university as an overcrowded institution, depersonalized in the students’ attention and where it is difficult establishing links with professors. Inclusion and attention diversity at the University have been considered insufficient, noting that this institution seeks to “give little importance to inclusiveness in classrooms and faculties; (...) it will last as long as you take care of it and you will take care of it as long as you want it, so the fight for inclusion in the university is neither wanted very much nor will it last” (S1).

Participants pointed out that the main barriers to the university inclusion come from the professors-students ratio. The considerable number of students in a compulsory subject (approx. 90-100 people) makes it difficult to know individual needs/demands. It was criticised that professors do not know their students because “the time they spend with their students is very little and they always work in large groups, which makes it difficult to get to know the characteristics and diversity of the students” (S83). Others mention the way learning is organised in this space as an argument against this criticism and as justification for the cold and distant teacher-student relationship that causes,

(…) they do not have the individualised treatment that the students themselves would like or even the professors, which is quite normal, because although they make their best efforts, it is almost impossible for one of our professors, who only gives us one semester, sometimes not even that, to contact and get to know more than 100 students (S14).

Overcrowding in university classrooms hinders attention to diversity and personalisation as pedagogical principles, from the organisation of a subject to the teaching methodology. The very “form and structure” of the institution means that it is the students who have to adapt to a university that is “very difficult to change, so there is no other solution than to adapt ourselves” (S93). Moreover, overcrowding is seen as “incompatible” with individualised teaching attention, since the efforts made “happen in an improvised and decontextualised way” (S116). Even though students seem to understand and accept that this institutional structure does not favour personalised attention to students, they place this responsibility on the professor:

The university system is oriented towards more distant teaching, where students must be more autonomous in their learning. And I am reluctant to think that “there is no other way”, because as soon as it is known that the professor influences the students, it would be necessary to know these students (S65).

However, another perceived barrier appears here: the multitasking profile of the professors. The aspirations of the majority of professors, mainly towards research or scientific dissemination, were pointed out as “a factor that rivals the possibility of offering personalised attention” (S3). Furthermore, there is a negative appraisal of professor-student relationship at the university. Professors’ attitude is perceived as distant and uncommitted to inclusion, which makes it harder for students to share their situation or demands, since “if a professor is apathetic and distant, students perceive communication as a nuisance, so they avoid it, even if it is harmful” (S3).

The discourse on this distancing seems to be linked to the more practical component of inclusion (organizing learning and mobilizing resources). Precisely the practical dimension received the lowest scores (Table 5). In the organisation of learning, discipline based on mutual respect (M = 2.76, SD = 0.92) stood out, in line with the demand for a “young but mature adult” peer relationship (S148), and followed by “collaborative learning” (M = 2.74, SD = 0.89), although this does not exempt the presence of difficulties “in contact with/among students” (S3, S57). They also valued positively the promotion of understanding diversity in the classroom (M = 2.64, SD = 0.94) and the active involvement of students in their learning (M = 2.52, SD = 0.88), which reinforces the search for “meaningful learning” (S101, S116). However, the way in which professor plan, review and teach collaboratively (M = 2.49, SD = 0.91), related to a “changing and flexible” institutional organisation (S105), was considered to be an area for improvement.

Table 5 shows that the appraisal of the inclusive culture is significantly higher than the inclusive policy (p < .001), especially in the establishment of inclusive values, as well as in the practice of inclusion (p < .001). The university’s capacity to build inclusive communities was rated higher than the organisation of learning in the classroom (p = .004) and resource mobilisation (p < .001), as was the establishment of inclusive values than the organisation of learning (p < .001) and resource mobilisation (p < .001). Consistent with these results, it is worth referring to the contribution of a participant who evidences the role attributed to the teacher and the university institution in the path towards educational and social inclusion:

I often get the impression that some professors have some interest in us, but it’s not true; I notice that they ask questions or that they want us to intervene simply out of commitment, because they teach us that a good part of learning must be interactive and didactic, and that’s why they do it (...). Obviously, there will always be professors who are not like that and who really care about what we can contribute (...) Interest and inclusiveness cannot be forced (S152).

Students’ perceptions about the university environments and spaces

Students recognise the existence of specific services to respond to their diversity (especially physical), but not other characteristics such as mental health or socio-economic problems. They also pointed out that, despite the reservation of places for people with functional diversity, the facilities have access barriers [“why can’t blind, mute or deaf people come to the university? Therefore, they demand buildings and facilities adapted to different situations and/or people because, although the universities are concerned about physical adaptations (chairs for left-handed people, toilets for the disabled...), these are perceived as one-off actions in “old, inflexible facilities, which make it difficult to move around the centre” (S42, S70).

These results were also reflected quantitatively in the appraisal of resources to attend to diversity (practices of inclusion). As can be seen in tables 4 and 5, this was the lowest rated subdimension (M = 2.37, SD = 0.85), significantly below the others (p < .001, d = 0.60-0.74), especially in terms of knowledge and use of community resources (M = 2. 24, SD = 1.00), and in the use of diversity among students as a teaching-learning resource (M = 2.31, SD = 0.99). On the contrary, physical accessibility showed mean values with a positive tendency (M = 2.52) but with discrepancies between subjects (SD = 1.13).

Differences were found among the academic, the emotional and the social perception of the university facilities. Academically, learning spaces with a traditional architecture where “there are still platforms and distribution of tables in rows” (S2) stood out, alongside the use of traditional educational practices (e.g. not very participatory lectures). This would justify the high appraisal that professors and students are treated as having a role (M = 2.91, SD = 0.85), as the role of these two agents is clearly differentiated in the academic space.

On an emotional level, the environment and spaces are described as “respectful and mature” (S11, S13, S58), free to express opinions without being or feeling judged, as they are inhabited by young adults (S47, S55), so it is “difficult to see someone not respecting another classmate or creating conflicts” (E4). The university is considered to make efforts to reduce discriminatory practices (M = 2.81, SD = 0.88), to prevent bullying (M = 2.69; SD = 1.07) and to a lesser extent to organise learning groups so that students feel valued (M = 2.25, SD = 1.02) and to coordinate support (M = 2.27, SD = 0.91). The perceived efforts of professors to link curriculum development and pedagogical support with the psychological and emotional support of students (M = 2.60, SD = 1.00) stood out.

Lastly, the social perception of the university was that of a space that is prone to socialising and expanding their social network, despite the fact that the overcrowding in the classrooms leads them to prioritise creating and maintaining their most closed circle of friends [“there are people in my class with whom I have never spoken, it overwhelms me, I almost always limit myself to being with the same group of friends” (S55)]. Regarding the inclusive culture, there is a need to improve the help to adapt to the faculty (M = 2.09, SD = 1.13) and during the academic year (M = 2.49, SD = 0.86).

Students and formal coexistence at the University

Professors-students’ relationships in Higher Education are formal relationships among adult people, where the recognition of the maturity and academic responsibility stood out, due to the “degree of maturity that we have” (S18). These relationships are also considered fleeting relationships “brief, prompt and less close” (S35). Among peers’ collaboration and support, good job climate and commitment stood out alongside individualism [“Undeniably the society is becoming increasingly individualistic, therefore selfishness begins to emerge affecting directly the system we are in, where grades are more important than general wellbeing” (S67)].

Students make the professors responsible for the promotion of the inclusive culture, policy and practices at the University since “they have a fundamental role since, depending on the classroom climate the interactions emerge on their own and in an effective way” (S43). They considered there was room for improvement in the way in which professors adapt classes for attending to students’ diversity (M = 2.45, SD = 0.94), being accessible to all (M = 2.59, SD = 0.99) and promoting the understanding of diversity (M = 2.64 SD = 0.94). It was also reflected in contributions such as “the social, moral and psychological environment is perhaps not so welcoming in some universities where professors, not so much students, make negative statements from a position of authority, which generate stigmatisation and rejection (S6)”; even so, they value positively the respectful treatment between professors and students (M = 3.01, SD = 0.82) and the professors’ attempts to make them do things to the best of their ability (M = 2.82, SD = 0.86), stating that “this way of working favours cooperation and our competitiveness, encouraging us to want to improve and to do things in the best possible way” (S10).

On average, t is perceived that all students are equally important (M = 2.85 SD = 0.89) and that there is some professors concern for supporting the learning and participation of all students (M = 2.51, SD = 0.92) and for resourcing them (M = 2.56, SD = 0.89). Even so, expectations do not seem to be the same for all (M = 2.38, SD = 0.84), considering that some students are favoured over others (M = 2.60, SD = 0.89), which can lead to competitiveness:

As far as collaboration is concerned, although it is true that in the activities carried out in groups in the classroom, cooperation is perceived, I believe that competitiveness is still present as a result of the presence of a system that grades students according to a number that defines their abilities and places them in a position of superiority or inferiority with respect to the rest of their classmates (S25).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The education system and the way in which it operates are decisive for making progress in reaching inclusion or, on the contrary, remaining anchored in exclusion (Fernández-Menor and Parrilla, 2021). Universities are making efforts to achieve inclusive Higher Education, seeking accessibility, participation and learning for all their students (Araneda-Guirriman et al., 2017; Moriña et al., 2019). The creation of university participation and inclusion services or the detection and removal of physical barriers are a starting point, but may be insufficient; likewise, listening to students’ needs must go beyond collecting information on the quality of professors through standardised systems (Calvo & Susinos, 2010) and delve deeper into the nuances of such assessments. This study aimed to provide an overview of the student’s perception of inclusion at university, which has given both light and shade on the reality in Galician universities.

The change from high school to university education implies a break with significant people and institutions. There is a certain disappointment on seeing it as an infantilised environment in which two differentiating characteristics can be identified: overcrowded classrooms and the coldness of professor-student relationships.

Una explicación plausible es la escasa preparación docente en metodologías que permitan enseñar en un aula diversa y la sensación de desamparo al enfrentarse a la necesidad de dar respuesta a la diversidad (Perera et al., 2022). La educación inclusiva sitúa al estudiante como centro del proceso del aprendizaje personalizado, siendo esencial atender a sus conocimientos previos, necesidades, capacidades y percepciones ( UNESCO, 2017) para diseñar espacios en los que este tenga un papel activo, evitando la pasividad y la dependencia (Calvo & Susinos, 2010).

Classroom overcrowding is a problem at international level (Araneda-Guirriman, 2017), which translates, in Spanish universities, into a lack of application of the principles of inclusive education, by maintaining assessments based on summative criteria as opposed to continuous assessment (Sandoval et al., 2020). One plausible explanation is the lack of professor preparation in methodologies that allow teaching in a diverse classroom and the feeling of helplessness when faced with the need to respond to diversity (Perera et al., 2022). Inclusive education places the student in the spotlight of the personalised learning process, and it is essential to address their prior knowledge, needs, abilities and perceptions (UNESCO, 2017) in order to design spaces in which they play an active role, avoiding passivity and dependence (Calvo & Susinos, 2010).

Professors’ attention to emotional and social aspects is essential for students’ all-round development. However, students are reluctant to share their concerns with their professors, perceiving them as cold and distant, while they do not seem to be aware of what the professors’ concerns and obligations are. One of the great barriers in universities is the undervaluation of the unduly excessive teaching burden (Márquez & Melero-Aguilar, 2021), which leads them to direct their work towards the highly valued research work (Alcaín & Medina-García, 2017).

The development of an inclusive university requires efforts to develop cross-disciplinary training in inclusive education, so that work is carried out on the basis of prevention, identifying barriers, generating beliefs and overcoming prejudices ( Márquez & Melero-Aguilar, 2021; Salmi & D’Addio, 2021). Inclusive education is a term unknown to some professors, many of whom still adhere to the deficit model (Collins et al., 2019) and acknowledge the lack of knowledge of the current rules and regulations to address diversity (García-González et al., 2021; Rangel-Baca, 2021). However, research also indicates that professors who are inclusive use similar methodological strategies aimed at all students (Moriña & Orozco, 2022).

This research shows that universities must adapt to the students and not the other way around, a principle on which the models of inclusion and the paradigm of support that today preside over educational proposals and attention to diversity are based. Professors need training in inclusion and universities need a firm institutional commitment (Bartolomé et al., 2021; Perera et al., 2022) and the implementation of inclusive policies and practices.

An optimistic result in this research points to the importance that students attach to social relationships of respect and support in the university, which transcend the academic sphere. The university plays a crucial role in students’ lives, becoming a real-life opportunity (Calvo & Susinos, 2010) which, given the aforementioned overcrowding, forces them to group together in small circles of support that may tend to create stronger ties. Discrepancies regarding the benefits and prejudices of the university environment have already been highlighted by previous literature, both in students (Collins et al., 2019; García-González et al., 2021; etc.) and in other key agents, such as families and/or professors (Magumise & Sefotho, 2020; Márquez & Melero-Aguilar, 2022; Paseka & Schwab, 2020).

In conclusion, educational inclusion generates diverse narratives and expectations that require joint action to listen and respond to the questions that may arise in order to understand and accept diversity (Opertti, 2019). What is clear is that it necessarily implies eliminating the homogenisation of the education system, where the integration background of special education is still palpable (Vigo-Arrazola et al., 2022), and understanding that inclusion refers to an education that revolves around diversity and where everyone has room. Therefore, it cannot be addressed exclusively through policies far removed from inclusive educational cultures and practices, because inclusion is a process that affects the whole student body, the institution and its members, and the processes of exclusion or inclusion do not arise naturally, due to certain intrinsic characteristics of individuals, but are constructed socially and relationally based on different opportunities (Unicef, 2017). Unfortunately, and despite the progress made, “it seems that the world is not on track to meet the 2030 education goals” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2020, p. 32).

REFERENCES

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587

Alcaín, E., & Medina-García, M. (2017). Hacia una educación universitaria inclusiva: Realidad y retos. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria, 11(1), 4-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.19083/ridu.11.530

Araneda-Guirriman, C., Pedraja-Rejas, L., & Rodríguez-Ponce, E. (2017). Desafíos de la educación superior en el contexto de la masificación: Un análisis conceptual desde el habitus institucional. Espacios, 38(60), 19-30. https://cutt.ly/S4tps8m

Asociación Americana de Psicología. (2017). Principios éticos de los psicólogos y código de conducta. https://cutt.ly/B4tIYwC

Bartolomé, D., Martínez, L., & García, V. V. (2021). La inclusión en la educación superior ecuatoriana: Algunas iniciativas. Espacios, 42(9), 57-68. https://cutt.ly/54tIUch

Blake, H., Knight, H., Jia, R., Corner, J., Morling, J. R., Denning, C., Ball, J., Bolton, K., Figueredo, G., Morris, D., Tighe, P., Méndez Villalón, A., Ayling, K., & Vedhara, K. (2021). Students’ views towards Sars-Cov-2 mass asymptomatic testing, social distancing and self-isolation in a university setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084182

Calvo, A., & Susinos, T. (2010). Prácticas de investigación que escuchan la voz del alumnado: Mejorar la universidad indagando la experiencia. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 14(3), 75-88. https://cutt.ly/Y4tIOFZ

Campos, P. (2021). Campus inclusivos: Aportes desde el urbanismo, composición arquitectónica y perfil funcional. Urbanistični Inštitut Republike Slovenije, 32(2), 124-133. https://cutt.ly/B4tIAs5

Collins, A., Azmat, F., & Rentschler, R. (2019). “Bringing everyone on the same journey”: Revisiting inclusion in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1475-1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1450852

Comité Español de Representantes de Personas con Discapacidad. (2020). Universidad y discapacidad. La inclusión de las personas con discapacidad en la Universidad española. Ediciones Cinca.

Echeita, G. (2017). Educación inclusiva. Sonrisas y lágrimas. Aula Abierta, 46, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.46.2.2017.17-24

Fernández-Blázquez, M. L., Echeita, G., Simón, C., & Martos, F. (2022). Hacia culturas, políticas y prácticas escolares más inclusivas. Termómetro para la Inclusión. Plena inclusión España.

Fernández-Menor, I., & Parrilla, A. (2021). Apuntes para la lucha contra la exclusión desde la comunidad socio-educativa. Revista Prisma Social, 33, 183-201. https://cutt.ly/G4tISJe

García-González, J. M., Gutiérrez, S., Solera, E., & Ríos-Aguilar, S. (2021). Barriers in higher education: perceptions and discourse analysis of students with disabilities in Spain. Disability & Society, 36(4), 579-595. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1749565

Losada-Puente, L., Fiuza Asorey, M. J., & Baña Castro, M. (2021). What defines inclusion in Higher Education institutions? Validation of an instrument based on the “Index for Inclusion”. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(1), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1992752

Magumise, J., & Sefotho, M. M. (2020). Parent and teacher perceptions of inclusive education in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(5), 544-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1468497

Márquez, C., & Melero-Aguilar, N. (2022). What are their thoughts about inclusion? Beliefs of faculty members about inclusive education. Higher Education, 83(4), 829-844. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00706-7

Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Pub.

Moriña, A., Aguirre, A., & Doménech Vidal, A. (2019). Alumnado con discapacidad en educación superior: ¿En qué, cómo y por qué se forma el profesorado universitario? Publicaciones, 49(3), 227-249. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v49i3.11411

Moriña, A., & Oriozco, I. (2022). Inclusive learning strategies at university: the perspective of Spanish faculty members from different knowledge areas. Culture and Education, 34(2), 231-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2022.2031786

Opertti, R. (2019). Convergencia de perspectivas sobre políticas en educación inclusiva. Publicaciones, 49(3), 267-282. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v49i3.11413

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. UNESCO.

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. Education 2030. UNESCO.

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020. Inclusion and education all means all. https://cutt.ly/c4tIGft

Paseka, A., & Schwab, S. (2020). Parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education and their perceptions of inclusive teaching practices and resources. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(2), 254-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1665232

Perera, V. H., Melero, N., & Moriña, A. (2022). Prácticas docentes para una educación inclusiva en la universidad con estudiantes con discapacidad. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 27(93), 433-454. https://cutt.ly/74tIJn2

Rahiem, M. D., Krauss, S. E., & Ersing, R. (2021). Perceived consequences of extended social isolation on mental well-being: Narratives from Indonesian university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910489

Ramírez, L., & Maturana, J. M. (2018). Significado del proceso de inserción a la vida universitaria: desde una perspectiva de aprendizaje como práctica social. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 12(1), 149-162. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-73782018000100149

Ramos, G., Pérez, A., Chiva, I., & Moral, A. (2021). Validation of a scale of attention to diversity for university teachers. Educación XX1, 24(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.28518

Rángel-Baca, A. (2021). Percepción de los profesores universitarios sobre su competencia para la atención a la diversidad. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 14(1), 25-44. https://cutt.ly/y4tILbL

Salmi, J., & D’Addio, A. (2021). Policies for achieving inclusion in higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 47-72. http://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1835529

Sandoval, M., Morgado, B., & Doménech, A. (2020). University students with disabilities in Spain: faculty beliefs, practices, and support in providing reasonable adjustments. Disability & Society, 36(5), 730-749. http://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1751078

Stacciarini, J. M. R., & Cook, C. L. (2015). La aplicación efectiva de la investigación usando métodos mixtos. Enfermería Universitaria, 12(3), 99-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reu.2015.04.005

Vigo-Arrazola, M. B., Dieste, B., & Blasco-Serrano, A. C. (2022). Education recommendations for inclusive education from the national arena in Spain. Less poetry and more facts. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 22(2), 275-314. https://cutt.ly/B4tagJ7

---

Received: 03 September 2022
Accepted: 05 March 2023
Published: 13 June 2023