An inclusive pedagogy in Arts and Humanities university classrooms: what faculty members do

An inclusive pedagogy in Arts and Humanities university classrooms: what faculty members do Abstract This article shows the educational strategies developed by faculty members that their students with disabilities considered as excellent for carrying out an inclusive pedagogy in Higher Education. 119 faculty members from 10 Spanish public universities participated in the study, 24 of whom were from the field of Arts and Humanities. Through a qualitative methodology, individual semi-structured interview was used for data collection. The data was analyzed inductively through a categories and codes system. The results show how the participants considered students' opinions when designing their methods. Moreover, the study shows the teaching strategies that the participants used to ensure the participation of all their students. Lastly, the article describes how the participants attended the concerns of students with disabilities. Finally, we discuss these results with previous studies, and we consider the main elements for an inclusive pedagogy that may serve as an example for other faculty members. Keywords Inclusive pedagogy; Arts and Humanities faculty members; Higher Education; Students with disabilities; Qualitative methodology. Introduction Throughout the last few decades, a large number of researchers have been concerned about the situation of non-traditional students in university environments. The studies in this line of research have aimed to identify the barriers that certain groups of students must overcome, the supports they require, the policies for their inclusion and the most suitable educational practices to respond to their needs (Brown, 2017; Gale and Hodge, 2015; Hughes, 2014). Usually, these studies have been focused on understanding and improving the academic experiences of students from diverse cultures and countries of origin (Blasco, 2015; Linder et al., 2015), transgender people (Wolff et al., 2017) and people with disabilities (Bumble et al., 2019; Spassiani et al., 2017; Vlachou and Papananou, 2018). Regarding to students with disabilities, the literature shows that they continue to encounter significant barriers that hinder their academic careers at the university (Anderson et al., 2018; Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017). In the context of Spain, where the study presented in this article was carried out, the situation is not different, and Spanish students with disabilities identify many different difficulties while attending university (Moriña et al., 2015). However, although studies show that barriers and obstacles for students with disabilities are often similar, authors such as Gibson (2012) point out the importance of serving students according to their disability, rather than in a general way. This justification is based on the individuality of the teaching processes being their different experiences depending on them. Mention should be made of invisible disabilities, that is, those that are not physically visible or manifested by students, such as learning difficulties or psychic disabilities. Studies such as those of Gibson (2012) or Mullins and Pryde (2013) reflect the doubly negative experiences that these students experience due to their disability. Sometimes, their veracity is questioned by their peers or faculty members. Actions such as listening to the voices of this student group would allow not only the suppression of such barriers, but also contribute to the increase of proposals for improvement towards the development of an education model, even in the University (Moriña, 2017b; Tangen, 2008). Many countries are developing policies and actions that pursue the full inclusion of students with disabilities in all educational stages, including Higher Education (HE). There has been considerable progress in the field of attention to disability in the university legislation in the last few decades. Actions such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008) and the Europe 2020 Strategy for an Intelligent, Sustainable and Integrating Growth (2014) pursue the right to an equitable education for everyone. In Spain, Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013, on the rights of people with disabilities and their social inclusion, or Organic Law 7/2007 on Universities, explicitly mention the existing legal recognition of the inclusion of people with disabilities in HE institutions. With these legal actions, the guarantee of equality and access to opportunities and non-discrimination of people with disabilities is established, being included as a legal imperative towards institutions in general and towards faculty members in particular. In this way, the adjustments faculty members have to offer students must respond more to the existing legal requirement than to their goodwill, although sometimes the literature evidences the opposite (Moriña et al., 2015). Although access to HE for students with disabilities is being ensured, their permanency is questioned by the lack of educational actions that attend their characteristics (Gibson et al., 2016). In addition to legislative measures and the provision of resources to educational institutions, it is necessary to analyze and improve the teaching-learning processes within the classrooms (Gale et al., 2017). In this sense, there is still much to do and many challenges to overcome for the development of practices based on the principles of inclusive education in HE (Moriña, 2017). The studies that have shown the perspectives of students with disabilities identify that the main difficulties come from the faculty members. This opinion has been shared by students with disabilities from different countries, including Spanish students (Moriña et al., 2015). When we analyze the barriers and supports that students with disabilities identify at the university in the literature, we can see that the experiences of students from all over the world coincide. In relation to faculty members, they refer to actions that hinder participation and their lack of training in inclusive education and disability (Collins et al., 2018). In fact, the students usually feel rejection and negative attitudes from the faculty members (Mullins and Preyde, 2013; Strnadová et al., 2015). Students even mention that some faculty members refuse to make the reasonable adjustments that they need to pass the subject (Fuller et al., 2004; Gibson et al., 2016; Yssel et al., 2016). In view of this situation, universities must have informed, trained and aware faculty members (Vickerman and Blundell, 2010). Furthermore, few studies in HE and disability in many countries around the world have shown the perspectives of faculty members, who admit to have little experience working with students with disabilities and little training and knowledge about inclusive practices (Black et al., 2014; Cook et al., 2009; Langørgen et al., 2018; Lombardi et al., 2015). However, they sometimes show willingness to make the reasonable adjustments and interest in receiving training in inclusive education (Becker and Palladino, 2016). Considering this information, it is necessary to pay further attention to the knowledge and skills of faculty members for the development of inclusive practices in the university. HE institutions have the responsibility to respond to the needs of all students (Doughty and Allan, 2008), with the faculty being a key element in this process. As in the case of elementary education (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011), little is known about the processes of inclusion that are being developed at the classroom level in universities. The main objective of many studies has been to determine the difficulties encountered by students with disabilities, although there is a small number of authors who have focused on providing alternatives to these barriers. In fact, many studies have recommended measures to improve university policies in terms of inclusion (Leyser and Greenberger, 2008; Riddell et al., 2007; Thomas, 2016). Even others have been dedicated to train faculty members to attend to students with disabilities (Rohland et al., 2003; Sowers and Smith, 2004). However, it is necessary to know efficient practices that are being developed in the classrooms. Once we know the barriers that students with disabilities are facing in the university, and the difficulties that faculty members usually encounter in the teaching-learning process, in this article we aim to take a further step: what if the solutions to these difficulties are in the hands of those faculty members who develop an inclusive educational practice? In addition to keep improving institutional actions, legislation and processes to support students with disabilities, it is necessary to know effective inclusive practical experiences that take place in university classrooms. In recent years, several studies have analyzed the educational practices of teachers of elementary education, which were characteristic for being inclusive teachers. In addition to analyzing their practices and actions, these studies considered the teachers' beliefs and knowledge underlying and motivating those practices. Thus, the concept of inclusive pedagogy emerged (Florian and Kershner, 2009). Inclusive pedagogy differs from previous approaches, such as special education (still characteristic of educational systems) and inclusive education. It is about providing support for all, offering for each student what he/she needs (Florian, 2010; Veck, 2014). Inclusive pedagogy recognizes the individual differences of students, thus avoiding the stigma of acknowledging some as different. Authors who have studied other approaches, such as the Universal Design for Learning (UDL), have alluded to the inefficiency of making individual adaptations according to the type of disability in the university (GrifulFreixenet et al., 2017). The traditional model, based on offering a completely different educational action to respond to educational needs, continues to be present in many educational institutions. It is a reactive approach, where the need is first detected and then a response is designed. In addition, this approach creates a stigma in the student, pointing out that he or she is different by having to work differently from his or her peers. However, university students have expressed more positive emotions when working with inclusive educational approaches (Yuval et al., 2004). In fact, some studies have reported that the application of the principles of the UDL can reduce the stress of students and improve their learning success (Kumar and Wideman, 2014). One of the key elements of inclusive pedagogy is the students' participation. The faculty members must consider the opinion of their students, and trust that they will make good decisions about their own learning (Echeita et al., 2016). From this approach, students play an active role, by choosing how, where, when and whom they learn with (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011). In this sense, university students with disabilities have pointed out that they prefer active and participatory teaching methods rather than traditional presentation strategies (Love et al., 2015). These results are reaffirmed in works such as those of Hughet et al. (2018), who reflect how the use of active and participatory methodologies, such as the Flipped Classroom, increase the students` motivation and the development of their skills. Inclusive faculty members are also characterized for having relationships of trust with their students, promoting interest for learning, generating group learning spaces and being open to the participation of other agents in the classroom (professionals, relatives, colleagues, etc.) (Echeita et al., 2016). Moreover, inclusive pedagogy has an important base in the proven premise that adjustments made for some students are beneficial for all (Rose et al., 2006; Pliner and Johnson, 2004). Knowledge about practices of faculty members based on inclusive pedagogy in HE is more limited than in other educational stages. We can quote the works of Gale and Mills (2013) and Gale et al. (2017), who analyze the concept of “social inclusive pedagogy” and the application of its principles in the university. In addition to areas of inclusive pedagogy already mentioned (beliefs and actions), these authors described how the teaching-learning processes are designed. Thus, social inclusive pedagogy is based on three principles (Gale and Mills, 2013: page 8): (1) a belief that all students bring things of value to the learning environment; (2) a design that values difference while also providing access to and enabling engagement with dominance; (3) actions that ‘work with’ rather than ‘act on’ students and their communities. These principles mean that all students contribute something to the learning of their peers, and their activity in the classroom is fundamental to achieving meaningful learning, as well as to maintaining their motivation and involvement. Furthermore, the design of teaching should consider the differences between students, rather than conceiving that all students learn in the same way. In addition, students' voices should be considered to enhance their academic experience, providing opportunities to decide how to work. This will have better results than applying changes or methods that faculty believes are most appropriate, without involving the students in these decisions. With the aim of filling a gap in the literature about inclusive pedagogy in HE, and following the examples of other colleagues such as Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) or Rouse (2008), in this article we analyze the actions developed by a group of faculty members in the field of Arts and Humanities to achieve the educational inclusion of all their students. Method This article is framed within a broader research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The main goal of the four-year-long (2016-2020) “Inclusive pedagogy in the university: faculty members’ narratives” (EDU2016-76587R, IP. Anabel Moriña) was to analyze the knowledge, beliefs, designs and actions of faculty members who develop inclusive pedagogy. As mentioned above, Spanish university students have identified faculty as the main barrier to their academic careers. The literature has focused on analyzing these barriers from the voice of students with disabilities, but there are fewer studies in which faculty members participate. For this reason, this study gives voice to faculty members who respond to these barriers, in order to show solutions to them, which have already been widely identified and described in other works. In order to recruit faculty members who really developed inclusive educational practices, we felt that it was not enough to ask them about what they used to do in the classroom. In order to ensure that they were truly inclusive faculty, the selection process was based on the opinions of students with disabilities. These students from different universities proposed those faculty members with whom they had encountered no barriers to learning and who had encouraged their inclusion and participation. In this way, we ensured that all participants had experience teaching students with disabilities, and that they did so in an appropriate way. Participants 119 Faculty members from 10 Spanish public universities participated in the study (the profile of the complete sample group of the study can be consulted in Moriña, 2019). Regarding the participants from the field of Arts and Humanities, whose data we present in this article, we contacted 37 faculty members to ask for their collaboration. In the end, 24 faculty members participated in the study. Those faculty members who decided not to participate stated that they were unavailable due to illness or lack of time. The recruitment of the participants was based on a single criterion: they had to be faculty members recommended by their own students with disabilities. To this end, we requested the collaboration of the Disability Support Services of the universities. After informing them about the project and its objectives and procedures, we asked them to share this information with the students with disabilities that were registered in their services. Via e-mail, the students were asked to recommend faculty members who had positively influenced their academic trajectories. For that purpose, we mentioned to the students some of the characteristics that these faculty members should show. In previous studies, these characteristics have been pointed out by students with disabilities as those that the ideal faculty should have (Moriña et al., 2015). • They believe in the capacities of all students. • They facilitate the learning processes. • Their teaching methods encourage student activity and participation in the classroom. They use different teaching methodological strategies. • They care for the learning of all their students. • They are flexible, willing to help. • They motivate the students. • They establish close relationship with their students and favor the interactions among them. • They make their students feel important, as part of the class. Once the students received the information from the Support Service of the universities, they sent an e-mail to the research team with the information about the faculty members they recommended and the reasons to propose them. On the other side, we used the snowball technique (Petersen and Valdez, 2005; Voicu and Babonea, 2011). The research team contacted university students with disabilities who had previously collaborated in other projects. In addition, we disseminated the information among faculty members and students of the different universities to reach other students with disabilities who could recommend inclusive faculty members. Once we had the data of the faculty members selected by their students, we contacted them via phone call and/or e-mail. We informed them about the objectives, method and procedure of the research and requested their participation. We also informed them that they had been chosen by their own students with disabilities. Regarding the profile of the participants, 12 of them taught in faculties of Fine Arts, five in the area of Language, Literature and Translation, two in Philosophy and Letters, one in Sociology and four in Geography and History. With regard to gender, 14 of them were men and 10 were women. With respect to the age of the participants, five of them were between 30 and 40 years old, seven were between 41 and 50 years old, six were between 51 and 60 years, and two were over 60 years old. Four participants decided not to state their age. Finally, there was also a variety regarding the years of teaching experience. Seven participants had less than 10 years of experience in the university, whereas 10 participants had between 11 and 20 years of experience. Four faculty members had between 21 and 30 years of experience, and only three participants had more than 30 years of teaching experience. Initially, we consider it important to consider the age of the participants, in order to know if there are differences in their practices due to their age or experience. However, no significant differences were observed between teachers according to age. Research instruments The data presented here corresponds to the first phase of the research. This phase was conducted using a qualitative methodology. As the data-gathering instrument, we used the individual semi-structured interview. Two interviews were conducted with each participant. The main purpose of the interview on educational actions was to know which practices and strategies were developed by the faculty members to attend to the diversity of their students, including students with disabilities. Some of the questions that guided this interview were the following: What are your initial considerations when designing the teaching project of your subject? What do you do to know the specific needs or difficulties of a student to follow your subject successfully? What do you do to help them overcome those difficulties? Do you usually consider the opinion of your students to redesign the teaching project during the development of the subject? What educational methods and strategies do you consider to be more effective for all students to learn, and why? Do you use the same strategies for students with disabilities? These questions, focused on educational actions, were generated from the principles of inclusive education, which students with disabilities themselves consider fundamental, such as: considering the opinion of students, knowing and considering the difficulties they encounter, developing different methods that minimize those difficulties, or adjusting for students with disabilities when necessary. The length of each interview was around 90 minutes. They were guided by different researchers of the team individually. Most of the interviews were carried out face-to-face, whereas, due to geographical distance or unavailability, three of the participants were interviewed online, via Skype, and another two via phone call. Regardless of the way in which the interviews were conducted, all the information was recorded in audio and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Data analysis A structural analysis of the data was performed using a categories and codes system created inductively, following the proposal of Miles and Huberman (1994). The analysis was conducted using the data analysis software MaxQDA12. The researchers were organized in pairs to analyze all the information. Then, one last analysis was carried out by the whole team as a single group. This analysis served for the categorization of the information in which doubts had arisen about how and where to include it. Table 1 shows the categories and codes generated for the analysis of the information presented in the results section of this article. Category Code Teaching-learning process design Climate Materials Faculty member-student relationship Knowing the students / identifying needs Flexibility in the design Negotiation with the students in the design Methodological strategies Organization Active methods Significant learning Team work / cooperative learning Theory-practice combination Role of the faculty member Assessment Table 1. System of categories and codes for the data analysis Through these categories, which included all the information obtained in the interviews, we divided the information into different thematic areas. Thus, for the analysis of the information presented in this article, we selected two categories. One of them contained information on the design of the planning of the subject. In this category, we were interested in knowing how participants considered the characteristics of students in order to re-design their planification and adjust it to the students at the beginning of the course. This category included aspects such as how to establish an initial relationship with the students and create a climate of confidence, how they collected information about what each student wanted to do in class and how they gave the opportunity to participate in the design of the programming, or the level of flexibility that the syllabuses had. On the other side, a second category on methodological strategies gathered all the information about the teaching methods: their previous organization, the level of activity and participation of the students, the different strategies used and the level of learning expected, the role of the faculty in the development of these methods and the different forms of evaluation of learning. Ethical issues With respect to the ethical issues of the research, an informed consent report was used. Through this document, the research team committed to provide a copy of the results report to the participants. Thus, the faculty members had the opportunity to modify or delete some information. In this document we inform the participants about the objectives of the research, the way in which they had been selected by their students, the research techniques and how the data would be treated and published. In this sense, through this document we undertook to maintain the anonymity of the participants in the research report, and not to publish their personal information and identities if they did not want to. Lastly, it was guaranteed that if any participant wished to leave the process during the course of the research, their data would be deleted and would not be used. Results The results are presented in three sections that show the key elements that the participants included in their teaching activity to ensure the participation of all their students. Firstly, we present the planning strategies for the subject matter attending to the diversity of the students at the beginning of the course. Secondly, we show the diverse methodological options that the faculty members developed in their classrooms to foster the participation and motivation of all their students. Finally, we highlight how the participants conceived teaching for students with disabilities specifically, and which actions they carried out when they need an alternative option. Teaching planning and first contact with the students Planning the teaching process prior to the beginning of the course was one of the main elements for the faculty members. They highlighted the importance of organizing the subject before initiating the course. Likewise, they considered it essential to share this information with their students. They knew that it was important for students to have an initial calendar in advance to let them know what, how and when was going to be done, which was essentially helpful for some students with disabilities (for example, for those who must be absent from some classes for medical visits). In addition to the dates established in the academic calendar, the faculty members provided all the information related to the methodology, the materials and the evaluation systems. I think it is better to give them the information in advance, so that they know what we are going to do, how we are going to do it, what we want to achieve and how we are going to evaluate that (Faculty 7). Furthermore, the participants considered that it was essential to know their students. These faculty members used the first contact with their students to find out their personal interests, what they expected to learn and how they wanted to do so. Thus, they had the opportunity to adapt the program to the proposals of their students, promoting their motivation and involvement for learning. This is an action that they used to do with all the students, not just those with disabilities. To this end, some participants performed an initial evaluation to know their previous knowledge, interests, motivations and expectations with respect to the subject. Usually, at the beginning of the course I do some sort of pre-evaluation. [...] they tell me what they know, their preferences, etc. This way I get an idea of who they are and then, we begin. I try to see their level, what they want to do, what they like, what they do, what brought them to this faculty, what they want to learn... Then, from that point, we get to work (Faculty 2). Thus, the participants could adapt their teaching methods to the characteristics of their students. This way, the faculty members obtained an initial knowledge about the diversity of the students, their personal differences, their motivations and their learning styles. Participants were aware of the existence of different learning styles in their students. That is, the cognitive and physiological traits by which learners perceive and understand information and interact within learning processes. Once they knew their characteristics, they decided to apply a methodological variety that suited and responded to all of them. Each group is an entirely different world. They have their personality. There are groups with great efficiency, others work harder, others are more creative... Therefore, the methodology to be used is a personalized methodology. We can hardly present a work project to the class, but we know that, in the end, each and one of them will assimilate it in a different way (Faculty 2). According to these faculty members, the beginning of the course and the first contact with the students was an opportunity to know their opinions about the subject matter, which, in turn, would allow them to adapt their teaching to the preferences of the group. With this goal, they stated that this action was fundamental to promote the motivation and interest of their students toward their own learning. Efficient teaching methods and strategies for everyone Once we knew their first steps with the students at the beginning of the course, we wanted to know how they developed their subjects. At the methodological level, the vast majority of the participants did not apply only one teaching strategy. Methodological variety was fundamental to improve the possibilities of all students to participate. should be submitted to faculty), different deadlines (flexibility when a student needs more time) or forms of presentations (e.g. a video instead of an oral presentation in the classroom when a student has difficulty speaking in public) (Ouellett, 2004). In any case, these are adjustments that any faculty member can make, always taking into consideration the voice of each student, who are best able to communicate what they require. As the UDL states, diversity does not only have to do with disability, so teaching must adjust to all the different characteristics of the group of students: learning styles, preferences, previous experiences, personality, abilities, etc. Therefore, by offering a variety of methods and materials we ensure that each student can choose how to work, depending on their characteristics. If teaching is rigid and has only one form of work, students who fail to adjust to it will be left out of the teaching-learning process. Considering all these aspects, and coinciding with the inclusive educational approach, we can affirm that the key lies in offering a variety of options, as well as offering an active role to students. Therefore, we can conclude that teaching should not differentiate between students with and without disabilities, but should be tailored to all students considering their differences. Lastly, this study also aims to contribute further knowledge to the new field of inclusive pedagogy in HE, by adding experiences of inclusive faculty members to those provided by the works of Gale and Hodge (2015) and Gale et al. (2017). We also hope that these results can serve as an example for other faculty members to work for the inclusion of all students. The educational principles that we have presented may help faculty members around the world to attend to diversity without restrictions, considering the participation, learning and academic success of each student as the core of their teaching activity. Limitations We must mention some limitations that arose throughout the research process. The first limitation is related to the fact that some interviews could not be conducted face-to-face. Although it would have been ideal for the interviews to be carried out face-to-face (due to the rapport established between the interviewer and the interviewee, the creation of an adequate environment and the non-verbal language), some participants were not available for it. Therefore, some interviews were conducted via Skype or phone call. However, we consider that, given the nature of the study, this had no influence on the answers of the interviewees or on the development of the interviews. Another limitation lies in the discussion of the results of other studies similar to ours. The number of studies about inclusive pedagogy in HE is limited, especially regarding the field of Arts and Humanities. Therefore, a research line to explore is inclusive pedagogy and its practical development in university levels. Likewise, and more generally, we encourage the realization of further studies that show the opinions and experiences of faculty members regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities and attention to diversity. References Almqvist CF and Christophersen C (2017) Inclusive arts education in two Scandinavian primary schools: a phenomenological case study. International Journal of Inclusive Education 21(5): 463-474. Anderson AH, Carter M and Stephenson J (2018) Perspectives of university students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 48(3): 651665. Bain K (2004) What the best college teacher do. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Becker S and Palladino J (2016) Assessing Faculty Perspectives about Teaching and Working with Students with Disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 29(1): 65-82. Black RD, Weinberg LA and Brodwin MG (2014) Universal design for instruction and learning: A pilot study of faculty instructional methods and attitudes related to students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education International 24(1): 4864. Blasco M (2015) Making the tacit explicit: rethinking culturally inclusive pedagogy in international student academic adaptation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 23(1): 85-106. Brown R (2017) Higher education and inequality. Perspectives: policy and practice in Higher Education 22(2): 37-43. Bumble JL, Carter EW, Bethune LK, Day T and McMillan, ED (2019) Community Conversations on Inclusive Higher Education for Students With Intellectual Disability. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 42(1): 29-42. Collins A, Azmat F and Rentschler R (2018) ‘Bringing everyone on the same journey’: revisiting inclusion in higher education. Studies in Higher Education: 1-13. Cook L, Rumrill P D and Tankersley M (2009) Priorities and understanding of faculty members regarding college students with disabilities. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 21(1): 84-96. Doughty H and Allan J (2008) Social capital and the evaluation of inclusiveness in Scottish further education colleges. Journal of Further and Higher Education 32(3): 275284. Echeita G, Sandoval M and Simón C (2016) Notas para una pedagogía inclusiva en las aulas In: Actas IV Congreso Iberoamericano de Síndrome de Down. Salamanca, Spain, 16-17 March 2016. Available at: https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/stmaria/sarrio/DOCUMENTOS,%20ARTICULOS,%2 0PONENECIAS,/Echeita,%20Sandoval%20y%20Simon.%202013.%20Congreso%20SD .pdf (accessed 04 December 2018) European Commission (2010) Europe 2020 Strategy for an Intelligent, Sustainable and Integrating Growth. Brussels: European Union. Florian L (2010) Special education in the era of inclusion:!The end of special education or a new beginning? The Psychology of Education Review 34(2): 22-29. Florian L and Black-Hawkins K (2011) Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal 37(5): 813-828. Florian L and Kershner R (2009) Inclusive Pedagogy. In Daniels H, Lauder H and Porter J (eds) Knowledge, Values and Educational Policy: A Critical Perspective (Critical Perspectives on Education). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge, vol 2, pp. 173-182. Fuller M, Healey M, Bradley A and Hall T (2004) Barriers to learning: a systematic study of the experience of disabled students in one university. Studies in Higher Education 29(3): 303-318. Gale T and Hodge S (2014) Just imaginary: Delimiting social inclusion in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 35(5): 688-709. Gale T and Mills C (2013) Creating spaces in higher education for marginalised Australians: Principles for socially inclusive pedagogies. Enhancing learning in the social sciences 5(2): 7-19. Gale T, Mills C and Cross R (2017) Socially inclusive teaching: Belief, design, action as pedagogic work. Journal of Teacher Education 68(3): 345-356. Gibson S (2012) Narrative accounts of university education: socio-cultural perspectives of students with disabilities. Disability & Society 27(3): 353-369. Gibson, S, Baskerville D, Berry A, Black A, Norris K and Symeonidou S (2016) 'Diversity' 'Widening Participation' and 'Inclusion' in Higher Education: An International study. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning 18(3): 7-33. Griful-Freixenet J, Struyven K, Verstichele M and Andries C (2017) Higher education students with disabilities speaking out: Perceived barriers and opportunities of the universal design for learning framework. Disability & Society 32(10): 1627-1649. Hughes K (2015) The social inclusion meme in higher education: are universities doing enough? International Journal of inclusive education 19(3): 303-313. Huguet C, Pearse J, Noè L, Valencia D, Ruiz N, Heredia A and Avedaño MA (2019). Improving the motivation of students in a large introductory geoscience course through active learning. Journal of Geoscience Education: 1-13. Kumar KL and Wideman M (2014) Accessible by design: Applying UDL principles in a first-year undergraduate course. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 44(1): 125-147. Langørgen E, Kermit P and Magnus E (2018) Gatekeeping in professional higher education in Norway: ambivalence among academic staff and placement supervisors towards students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education: 1-15. Leyser Y and Greenberger L (2008) College students with disabilities in teacher education: faculty attitudes and practices. European Journal of Special Needs Education 23(3): 237-251. Linder C, Harris JC, Allen EL and Hubain B (2015) Building Inclusive Pedagogy: Recommendations From a National Study of Students of Color in Higher Education and Student Affairs Graduate Programs. Equity & Excellence in Education 48(2): 178-194. Lombardi A, Vukovic B and Sala-Bars I (2015) International Comparisons of Inclusive Instruction among College Faculty in Spain, Canada, and the United States. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 28(4): 447-460. Love TS et al. (2015) STEM Faculty experiences with students with disabilities at a land grant institution. Journal of Education and Training Studies 3(1): 27-38. Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Moriña A (2017a) Different theoretical perspectives on inclusive education in higher education: challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Special Needs Education 32 (1): 3-17. Moriña A (2017b) ‘We aren’t heroes, we’re survivors’: higher education as an opportunity for students with disabilities to reinvent an identity. Journal of further and higher education 41(2): 215-226. Moriña A (2019) The keys to learning for university students with disabilities: Motivation, emotion and faculty-student relationships. PloS one 14(5): 1-15. Moriña, A, Cortés MD and Molina VM (2015) What if we could imagine the ideal faculty? Proposals for improvement by university students with disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education 52: 91-98. Mullins L and Preyde M (2013) The lived experience of students with an invisible disability at a Canadian university. Disability & Society 28(2): 147-160. Nightingale C (2006) Nothing about me, without me: involving learners with learning difficulties ordisabilities. London: Learning Skills Development Agency. Organic Law 4/2007, of 12 April, amending the Organic Law of 6/2001, of 21 December, on Universities. Boe, 13 April 2007. Petersen R and Valdez A (2005) Using snowball-based methods in hidden populations to generate a randomized community sample of gang-affiliated adolescents. Youth violence and juvenile justice 3(2): 151-167. Pliner S and Johnson J (2004) Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of universal instructional design in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education 3: 105-113. Riddell S, Weedon E, Fuller M, et al. (2007) Managerialism and equalities: tensions within widening access policy and practice for disabled students in UK universities. Higher Education 54: 615-628. Rohland P, Erickson B, Mathews D, et al. (2003) Changing the Culture (CTC): A Collaborative Training Model to Create Systemic Change. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 17(1): 49-58. Rose DH, Harbour WS, Johnston CS, Daley SG and Abarbanell L (2006) Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of postsecondary education and disability 19(2): 135-151. Rouse M (2008) Developing inclusive practice: a role for teachers and teacher education? Education in the North 16: 6–11. Royal Legislative Decree 1/2013, of 29 November, approving the Revised Text of the General Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and their Social Inclusion. Boe, 3 December 2013. Scanlon E, Schreffler J, James W, Vasquez E and Chini JJ (2018) Postsecondary physics curricula and Universal Design for Learning: Planning for diverse learners. Physical Review Physics Education Research 14(2): 1-19. Seale J (2009) Doing student voice work in higher education: an exploration of the value of participatory methods. British Educational Research Journal 36(6): 995-1015. Sowers JA and Smith MR (2004) Nursing faculty members’ perceptions, knowledge, and concerns about students with disabilities. Journal of Nursing Education 43(5): 213-218. Spassiani NA, Murchadha NÓ, Clince M, Biddulph K, Conradie P, Costello F, Cox L, Daly O, Middleton C, McCabe K, Philips M, Soraghan S and Tully K (2017). Likes, dislikes, supports and barriers: the experience of students with disabilities in university in Ireland. Disability & Society 32(6): 892-912. Strnadová I, Hájková V and Květoňová L (2015) Voices of university students with disabilities: inclusive education on the tertiary level–a reality or a distant dream?. International Journal of Inclusive Education 19(10): 1080-1095. Tangen R (2008) Listening to Children's Voices in Educational Research: Some Theoretical and Methological Problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education 23(2): 157–166. Thomas L (2016) Developing inclusive learning to improve the engagement, belonging, retention, and success of students from diverse groups. In Shah M, Bennett A and Southgate E (eds) Widening higher education participation. A global perspective. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 135-159. United Nations Enable (2008) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rightsof-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html (accessed 16 February 2019) Veck W (2014) Inclusive pedagogy: ideas from the ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Cambridge Journal of Education 44(4): 451-464. Vickerman P and Blundell M (2010) Hearing the voices of disabled students in higher education. Disability & Society 25(1): 21-32. Vlachou A and Papananou I (2018) Experiences and Perspectives of Greek Higher Education Students with Disabilities. Educational Research: 1-16. Voicu MC and Babonea A (2011) Using the snowball method in marketing research on hidden populations. CKS Challenges of the Knowledge 1: 1341-1351. Wolff JR, Kay TS, Himes HL and Alquijay J (2017) Transgender and GenderNonconforming Student Experiences in Christian Higher Education: A Qualitative Exploration. Christian Higher Education 16(5): 319-338. Yorke M (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher education 45(4): 477-501. Yssel N, Pak N and Beilke J (2016) A door must be opened: Perceptions of students with disabilities in higher education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 63(3): 384-394. Yuval L, Procter E, Korabik K and Palmer J (2004) Evaluation report on the universal instructional design at the University of Guelph. University of Guelph: University of Guelph.