Participants

A total of 119 faculty members of different fields of knowledge from 10 Spanish universities participated in this study, of whom 35 taught in the area of Social and Legal Sciences. However, due time constraints and personal circumstances of the participants, the final sample was constituted by 25 faculty members from 7 Spanish universities (Table 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Participant’s profile.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254250.t001

The disability services of the participating universities sent the information of the project to the students with disabilities of all fields of knowledge and asked for their voluntary collaboration. In addition, the snowball technique was used [35]. This way, participation was requested from these students, who were known to the research team for having participated in previous projects. Similarly, other acquainted faculty members who had had experiences with students with disabilities were also asked to participate.

The selection of participants was performed through students with disabilities, who nominated faculty members that, from their experience, had contributed to their inclusion in the university. To support them with this task, the research team sent them, via e-mail, a list of the characteristics that these faculty members should have: 1) facilitate the learning process; 2) promote active learning; 3) use different methodologies; 4) care about the learning of all students; 5) be flexible and help students who need assistance; 6) motivate their students; 7) achieve participation and group learning; and 8) make every student feel important.

Data collection instruments

Semi-structured individual interviews were used as data collection instruments. With the aim of creating a familiar environment with the participants and offering them flexibility, the research team decided to carry two individual interviews. The first interview was focused on the beliefs and knowledge of the participants, whereas the second interview was focused on their teaching designs and actions. This interview script was tested by faculty members who did not participate in the study. Specifically, here are some of the questions addressed in the results of this article:

• Could you tell me some characteristics that define you as a faculty member? How do you think your attitude or characteristics influence the students’ learning?
• When talking about disability, what ideas come to your mind? What do you know about disability? What do you know about inclusive education? What training do you think you should have in order to teach students adequately, especially students with disabilities? What do you think drove you to become interested in and work for the inclusion of students with disabilities?
• When you learn that there is a student with a disability in your subject, what actions do you take? What steps do you follow?

Each full interview lasted approximately 90 minutes, and most of them were conducted face-to-face, with 4 and 3 interviews being performed via telephone and Skype, respectively, due to either personal circumstances, preference or lack of time of the participants.

Data analysis

Following the proposal of Miles and Huberman [36], all information was transcribed by the research team and then qualitatively analysed using an inductive system of categories and codes. To facilitate the information processing, the data analysis software MaxQDA 12 was employed.

Data analysis consisted of two phases. The first one was a coding phase, characterised by a broad and generic system of categories. The second phase generated new subcodes related to the fundamental topics and ideas. Each subcode was thoroughly analysed for possible decomposition or merging with other codes (Table 2).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Categories and codes system.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254250.t002

All information was categorised, discussed and analysed by the research team, organising the doubtful information.

Ethical matters

This study was approved by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

The participants were informed from the beginning of the study through a written informed consent, which they signed and handed to the research team. This document explained the purpose of the study and their rights as participants. Moreover, it guaranteed their anonymity with numbers (Faculty 1-Faculty 25), their approval to be recorded, their voluntary participation and the possibility of leaving the study whenever they wished.

Each transcription was e-mailed to its corresponding participant, who was given the opportunity to make changes in the text.

The characteristics of faculty members as the background of their inclusive profile

First, it is necessary to assert that all the participants defined themselves as responsible faculty members committed to their subjects. They tried to comply with the entire programme established and were consistent in the different tasks they had to perform (updating contents, tutoring, lecturing, etc.).

Some of them pointed out that the teaching profession should be vocational, stating that they had chosen it consciously, knowing what it entailed and required, without considering other matters, such as the salary. However, they also considered that it was fundamental to communicate properly. They defined themselves as communicative people who knew how to transmit knowledge to the students, connect with them and maintain the attention of the latter with their way of teaching.

I think that I communicate very well with my students. The knowledge we have is not as important as how we transmit it and ensure that it reaches our students

(Faculty 19).

Most of them expressed that they were sensitive toward their students in their day-to-day routine, understood their situation, cared for their lives, knew their names and connected with their particularities. They perceived themselves as accessible people who helped each student feel confident to come to them whenever they needed help.

I believe I am an open and accessible person. I always suggest them to come to the tutorials if there is something they do not understand. When I explain something, I try to get them to confirm that they understood

(Faculty 14).

Despite this, these characteristics were not in conflict with the requirement level of the subject. The majority of participants considered that, in addition to being open, they were also demanding in terms of academic performance. They believed that students had to face a very specific work environment and that their lectures had to contribute to preparing them for the professional reality that was awaiting them.

All these characteristics of the participating faculty members influenced the learning of their students, since, in their opinion, they encouraged the students to learn, get involved in the subject and be constantly motivated. From their perspective, this was associated with the organisation and design of the subject itself, which was known in advance by the students.

I believe that I provide that: anticipation and confidence. All this catches them and allows them to work in the subject with constant motivation (Faculty 25). In short, their teaching responsibility, demanding nature and commitment to the learning of their students with disabilities made the latter also feel comfortable with the subject, confident and sure about what they were learning.

The concept of disability as a motivation for being an inclusive faculty member

Most of the participants highlighted that they did not have previous training or knowledge about disability. In fact, some of them did not even want to define it, out of fear of not using the right words.

I would find it difficult to define what disability is, without saying something inappropriate, although I have heard that disabilities are called different abilities, is that right? So, I know very little about disability

(Faculty 5).

However, despite their lack of specific training or knowledge related to disability, they knew that there was a very varied typology and that the concept of disability was very broad. These faculty members admitted that people with disabilities were those who required additional support for learning. Likewise, they indicated that, in the university, they mostly found people with physical disabilities, and that this type of disability was easier to detect. On the other hand, they also pointed out the existence of other types of disabilities that were not as visible as physical disabilities, e.g., mental disabilities.

The first thing that comes to my mind is a person who has a physical disability, but that is not the only type of disability, since disability is a broader concept. There are many types of disabilities that can hinder the learning process

(Faculty 6).

Mainly, the majority of participants conceived disability from two clear theoretical perspectives. Some faculty members presented a conception according to the medical model, whereas others referred to the social model of disability. From the medical perspective, they supposed that people with disabilities had a series of limitations that imposed difficulties and barriers on their daily life.

A disability is any characteristic of a person that impedes him/her to do certain things that most people can do, with the same conditions, age and training

(Faculty 5).

The perspective of disability from a social model implies assuming that it is society which generates the needs of people. From this approach, talking about disability involves stigmatising and labelling people. Thus, for these faculty members, any person, under certain circumstances, could have a disability and require adjustments at some point in his/her life.

Talking about disability, from my point of view, is totally outdated and stigmatising. We must take into account that any person can have specific needs at some point

(Faculty 2).

Moreover, most of the participants had very little knowledge of pedagogy or educational inclusion. They admitted having no specific faculty training in this regard. In fact, only a few of them had obtained the Pedagogic Aptitude Certificate (CAP, in Spanish) or passed through the new-faculty training of their universities. Others stated that the little knowledge they had originated from their own experience or the exchange of information with other colleagues. However, despite this lack of training, some of them defined disability from an integrative perspective, in which the students with disabilities had to be present, be part of the group-class and develop their sense of belonging.

I know that the aim is to integrate everyone, work with groups of people in which they all feel integrated and ensure that they are part of the class

(Faculty 4).

Furthermore, some participants associated the meaning of inclusive education with the acceptance and recognition of differences. In their opinion, inclusive education was not the labelling of a certain group or specific people, but rather a philosophy that had to be present at all stages of education and which implied empathising with the other person.

Inclusive education is about educating in the acceptance of diversity, promoting empathy. It is fundamental in all these matters to always put oneself in the other person’s shoes and help

(Faculty 21).

One of the key aspects of this study is that the majority of faculty members had very little training and knowledge about disability and inclusion. Nevertheless, they were selected by their students as inclusive lecturers. This assertion leads us to question if disability training is part of the foundations of inclusive practices. What did motivate these faculty members to be inclusive? What reasons or attitudes underlie these inclusive practices?

Data indicate that these inclusive attitudes are related either to previous experiences of most of the participants, both at the workplace and in their personal lives, or their ethical values. They considered that it was an ethical and professional obligation to reach all students and facilitate their learning beyond their disabilities or personal characteristics.

I do it because it is my duty. My job is to try and reach as many students as possible. There is no greater satisfaction than seeing how you manage to improve the life of a person

(Faculty 2).

Another motivation was associated with the sensitivity, empathy and personal involvement of each faculty member. Most of the participants asserted that their motivation for providing an inclusive response to students with disabilities was to reduce the difficulties they could experience in the learning process. At the same time, this was the same motivation that drove them to attend to any other student adequately.

I like caring about people, regardless of whether or not they have a disability. I try to help them as much as I can

(Faculty 6).

Finally, some faculty members highlighted that their motivation for carrying out inclusive practices in the classroom was a matter of fundamental rights. These professionals pointed out that universities, and thus faculty members, are at the service of people and should provide the conditions to guarantee equal opportunities as social justice for all students, without exceptions.

Everyone has the right to the same opportunities. You may have some type of special need, but you do not have to spend your life making twice as much effort as other people to achieve the same goal

(Faculty 4).

The actions taken by faculty members as an evidence of their inclusive work

More than half of participants stated that they carried out most of their inclusive practices almost unconsciously, based on goodwill actions and their predisposition to help. These actions were related to applying common sense responding to the specific needs of the students.

The first action consisted in learning more about the circumstances of the students with disabilities. Most of these faculty members delved, on their own, into the requirements of each type of disability and the needs of each student. In general, they did so by directly asking the students what they needed and how they could help.

First, I get in contact with him/her directly, in order to know more or less how I can help him/her. Not all disabilities or functional diversities are the same

(Faculty 3).

Moreover, some of them also searched for further information on how to act in the classroom to attend to certain types of disability. To this end, they consulted the disability services of the university, specialised services outside of the university or colleagues with similar experiences.

I asked other colleagues what they had done, what they had learned, what assignments they gave to the students so I could link them to my selection of assignments.

(Faculty 23).

The second action was related to the reasonable adjustments that they carried out to adapt to the needs of the students. The majority of faculty members, despite their lack of training in how to do this, had a predisposition and positive attitude toward making reasonable adjustments in their subject. They pointed out that it was very important not to ‘lower’ the content levels of the subject, but to adapt elements such as method (how the contents are taught), materials (type of documents and font size) and even evaluation (exam format and time to complete it).

In class, I use presentations, videos and a set of instruments to reinforce certain contents. Then, if there is someone with a special need, obviously, I give him/her the material in advance so that he/she can see the slides better from his/her computer

(Faculty 1).

The third action was related to follow-up and attention to the students through the tutorial sessions. More than half of faculty members were eager to extend their tutoring schedule if necessary and even to invite some students who seemed to need it. They stated that these tutorials helped them to track the learning process more individually and to delve into possible difficulties that the students could be encountering in the subject.

We met once every week for one hour. The students came to see me and told me how he/she was doing with the subject, whether he/she had any doubts or whether he/she had felt frustrated at any point in class

(Faculty 8).

Finally, a few participants mentioned that they carried out certain practices in the classroom that complemented the previous practices. One of these actions consisted of giving the contents to the students in advance. Another action was the promotion of support among peers. The faculty members highlighted that interaction between students was key for students with disabilities to feel comfortable and to learn more.

Being aware of their environment, of the classmates with whom they have more contact, even without the student knowing. There are more advanced students, whom I know are closer to them; so, I make sure they help them, give them lecture notes, etc.

(Faculty 2)

Proposals for improving the current situation of students with disabilities

The first suggestion made by all of the participants for improving the situation of students with disabilities in the university referred to making reasonable adjustments in the classroom. Specifically, most of the participants explained that the disability services provided some general guidelines to follow with those students who communicated their needs. Such information, according to the faculty members, was useful in practice for their subject, although it was insufficient for the development of inclusive practices. From their point of view, it was necessary to have better coordination and support from the disability services.

They give you some general steps to follow, but this depends a lot on your personal attitude. They only told me that this person did not see well and that the letters had to be big. And what knowledge do I have about people with visual impairment? Nobody has trained me in that matter. So, I have to improvise on the fly.

(Faculty 11)

The second aspect that most of the participants considered to be in need of improvement was faculty training and information. They expressed, in general, their dissatisfaction with the training received, especially regarding attention to diversity. They stated that nobody had helped them to face the challenge of having a student with a disability in the classroom and providing an adequate response. Nonetheless, they explained that it was essential to have a proactive attitude toward helping each student, ensuring one’s training and finding alternatives for oneself.

Nobody helped me, but I took a course in order to improve both me, in terms of satisfaction, and the students, in terms of results. So, I think every faculty member must be involved and search for those courses.

(Faculty 1)

Additionally, the majority of participants made a series of suggestions about some aspects that could be improved for a more inclusive university.

One of these suggestions was related to disability services. Some faculty members proposed that there should be more active and committed specialists working jointly with each faculty member to determine which reasonable adjustments should be made.

In many cases, it is not possible to help students as much as one would like to, simply because one is not aware of these circumstance in the classroom. So, I think that we should work jointly and follow up with the students, see which classrooms they are in, which subjects they are registered for and which guidelines are most adequate to follow

(Faculty 6).

Another suggestion was focused on faculty training. Most of the participants emphasised that faculty members must be offered comprehensive pedagogical training about inclusion. They believed that it was essential to learn how to make inclusive adaptations for teaching projects and methodologies to be valid for all students.

The university should coordinate, train and inform better. It would be ideal if all faculty members received a series of guidelines to adapt our projects, our methodology…I do this in a self-taught manner and of my own free will

(Faculty 1).

Another proposal made by some participants was that the university should be designed for every student from the beginning. This proposal was framed within the basic pillars of UDL. They pointed out that it was fundamental to make a mentality change about the meaning of providing an inclusive response, as well as to improve the regulations, followed by a study of the architectural, didactic, political and cultural barriers present in each department. This would promote awareness of how difficulties encountered by students were actually imposed by the institution and not an intrinsic characteristic of people with disabilities.

The university must take into account students with disabilities from the base of its design. Everything we propose, in any matter (classrooms, workshops, scholarships, resources…), must be designed in a way that students with disabilities can have the same opportunities as any other student

(Faculty 4).

Finally, a few participants considered it necessary to improve the coordination among faculty members and create student support groups in order to work together for the inclusion of all students. From their perspective, the reality of university was individualistic and did not include favourable communication between departments and professionals. Student support groups would improve the academic success of students with disabilities, and teams of faculty members would allow exchanging concerns, doubts and useful experiences to reflect on the practice and improve their teaching.

Is there a forum for faculty members to help when there is a student with a disability in class? I do not know whether my colleague in the office next to mine has a student with a disability. Nobody knows what I have experienced with my students

(Faculty 11).

Recommendations and future research

Regarding the aspects that could be improved in the inclusion of students, these faculty members highlighted two basic lacks to be covered among the faculty and in the university as an institution. The first one was related to the support provided by the disability services to help faculty members to make the reasonable adjustments according to the type of disability. [26, 39]. Participants pointed out their concerns regarding the lack of coordination between these services, the faculty and the students. This idea already supported by other researchers [34] is backed regarding that limitations, in some cases, are imposed by culture itself and by how the university understands and welcomes disability. It would be adequate to have awareness campaigns about disability, as well as work groups among faculty members of the same department to reflect and share concerns, experiences with students and didactic resources in a collaborative manner. The second one was related to the lack of a firm response by the university with an integral plan of pedagogical training and information about disability [29, 31]. It is clear that faculty members must be proactive, eager to receive training and have initiative, although the opinions of the participants become guidelines for universities to listen to the needs of the faculty and, consequently, take care of and commit to a proper and quality faculty training.

Future research should extend the analysis to the reasons that influence the academic success of students with disabilities and how they experience their inclusion in the labour market.