University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors and forces of impact: teaching students with disabilities in Mexican universities

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors and forces of impact: teaching students with disabilities in Mexican universities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Factors and Forces of Impact: Teaching Students with Disabilities in Mexican Universities

Francesca Munda

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2023

© Copyright by Francesca Munda 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Francesca Munda certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Courtney Malloy
Brandon Martínez
Rudolph Crew, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that
influence Mexican higher education faculty’s implementation of inclusive teaching
methodologies for students with disabilities (SWD). Social cognitive theory and critical
disability theory served as guiding frameworks for the study. Findings suggest some participants
have ableist attitudes toward disability, while others have positive and inclusive beliefs. Despite
these differences, all are willing to implement inclusive teaching practices despite lacking the
procedural knowledge to do so. Additionally, findings point to varied experiences in teaching
SWD, where most participants implement reactive strategies versus more inclusive approaches.
Finally, participants report their institutions lack the institutional policies, training opportunities,
and resources to adequately execute inclusive teaching methodologies for SWD. Three research-
based recommendations to improve faculty’s delivery of inclusive teaching methodologies in
Mexican universities are provided: experiential training on the implementation of inclusive
teaching strategies, namely universal design for learning; the creation of learning communities to
drive collaboration and support in the implementation of inclusive teaching strategies in a higher
education setting; and the participatory creation of institutional policies and regulations
regarding the inclusion of SWDs in Mexican universities.

v
v
Dedication
To all teachers: This is for you, with my utmost respect and admiration.
To my greatest teachers: Paulino, Lorenzo, and Lucero.
To Toño, Paulino, and Lorenzo: Without your relentless support and sacrifice, this achievement
would not have been possible. This is your accomplishment, too.
To my parents: Thank you for your support and unwavering belief in my ability to fulfill this and
every other milestone in my life.

vi
vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my family, cohort 19, and faculty members for standing by my side
throughout this journey. Thank you, “Team Fran,” for celebrating me and with me: Mami, Papi,
Toño, Paulino, Lorenzo, Diego, Paulina, and Marina.
A special thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Crew, for guiding me from the very start
and giving me the confidence to go far, even beyond this dissertation. Thank you to my
committee members, Dr. Malloy and Dr. Martínez, for their valuable insight and support.
Thank you to my study group, Janine, Adriana, and Nicholas, for your motivation and
inspiration.
My appreciation to Father Cipriano Sánchez, Luz del Carmen Dávalos, Jorge Fabre, and
Lorena Martínez for providing me the support to further my studies and for their continued
interest in my professional development.
A special recognition to the team of the School of Education and Humanities for their
notable patience and unwavering encouragement throughout my doctoral journey.
Thank you to Bernardo González Arechiga for his time and interest in my research and
for pointing me in the right direction on more than one occasion.
Thank you, Gloria and Carlos Castañeda, for being the first to welcome me into the
exceptional Trojan family.
Finally, and most importantly, thank you to all who participated in this study. Your
bravery, determination, and generosity are unparalleled and have been a constant inspiration to
me.

vii
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 5
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 6
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 10
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 31
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 32
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 32
Overview of Methodological Design ................................................................................ 32
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 34
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 34
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 36
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 38
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 39
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 39
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 40
viii
viii
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 43
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 43
Findings for Research Question 1 ..................................................................................... 47
Findings Research Question 2 .......................................................................................... 75
Findings Research Question 3 ........................................................................................ 115
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 142
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 145
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 145
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 148
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 149
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 149
References ................................................................................................................................... 151
Appendix A: Survey Protocol in English.................................................................................... 170
Appendix B: Survey Protocol in Spanish ................................................................................... 173
Appendix C: Interview Protocol in English ................................................................................ 176
Introduction to the Interview .......................................................................................... 176
Conclusion to the Interview ............................................................................................ 178
Introducción a la Entrevista ............................................................................................ 180
Conclusión a la Entrevista .............................................................................................. 182
Appendix E: Data Collection Sheet ............................................................................................ 183
Appendix F: Information Sheet in English ................................................................................. 185
Appendix G: Information Sheet in Spanish ................................................................................ 188
Appendix H: Codebook .............................................................................................................. 191

ix
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 33
Table 2: Participants’ Experience Teaching SWD 45
Table 3: Universities’ Policies and Regulations 132
Table A1: English Survey Protocol 170
Table B1: Spanish Survey Protocol 173
Table C1: English Interview Protocol 177
Table D1: Spanish Interview Protocol 181
Appendix E: Data Collection Sheet 183
Appendix E: Data Collection Sheet 184
Appendix H: Codebook 191

x
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 13

xi
xi
List of Abbreviations

HEIs Higher Education Institutions

SWDs Students with Disabilities

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Higher education in Mexico reproduces and perpetuates inequity for individuals with
disabilities, placing them at risk for educational and economic exclusion. Mexican higher
education institutions (HEIs) do not face this problem alone, as research suggests that regardless
of country, political context, or financial resources, the issue of inequity for students with
disabilities (SWDs) is a problem seemingly unsolved by educators and policymakers alike. Many
countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, Spain, and Ireland have
committed to international instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (U.N. General Assembly, 2007) and enacted national legislation to ensure increased
access to higher education for SWDs (Biewer et al., 2015; Hewett et al., 2020; Kilpatrick et al.,
2017; Leake & Stodden, 2014). Nonetheless, increased attrition rates for this population
compared to their non-disabled peers persist (Berrigan et al., 2020; Biewer et al., 2015; Carroll et
al., 2020; Kilpatrick et al., 2017), suggesting that despite political intent to improve conditions
for SWDs, HEIs have yet to address the issue of pervasive academic barriers.
International data point to three key issues that hinder SWDs’ participation and learning
in higher education: faculty’s lack of knowledge surrounding disability and inclusive education
(Gurbuz et al., 2019; Kendall, 2016; Pérez-Castro, 2019), their inability and unwillingness to
make reasonable adjustments and provide accommodations (Berrigan et al., 2020; Cruz-Vadillo
& Alvarado, 2017; Kendall, 2016; Pérez-Castro, 2019), and their ableist attitudes toward
disability (Carroll et al., 2020; Castellanos Daza et al., 2018; Cruz-Vadillo, 2016; Ehlinger &
Ropers, 2020; Hsiao et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2018; Torres et al., 2019; Toutain, 2019). Failure
to address these problems by HEIs could have unfavorable consequences for SWDs, such as
academic and economic exclusion, because education is a key factor in the likelihood of future
2

employment (Dewi et al., 2022). Furthermore, at a macroeconomic level, marginalizing
individuals with disabilities can potentially cause between 3% and 7% of lost revenue to a
nation’s economy (Buckup, 2009). This is specifically true in Mexico and other developing
countries, where there is a lack of infrastructure supporting the development of SWDs.
Context and Background of the Problem
International research suggests there is a mixture of success and failure from which to
learn and build as HEIs seek to refine their inclusion practices. Studies from several countries
reveal insidious barriers in HEIs’ educational response to SWDs. Research from Colombia,
Portugal, Spain, and the United States, for example, points to the well-researched fact of
faculty’s unwillingness to make pedagogical accommodations for SWDs (Castellanos Daza et
al., 2018; Martins et al., 2018; Rodríguez-Martín & Álvarez-Arregui, 2015; Sarrett, 2018).
Additionally, data from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain highlight faculty’s
misinformation regarding disability, policies, and inclusive teaching methodologies as a barrier
to providing accommodations for these students (Cook et al., 2009; Gurbuz et al., 2019; Moriña,
2019; Moriña et al., 2017). Finally, studies in Colombia and Portugal suggest ableist views of
disability prevail among university faculty (Castellanos Daza et al., 2018; Martins et al., 2018).
Although research shows that SWDs remain a marginalized population at many HEIs throughout
the world, it also points to some success in eliminating this disparity.
Literature from various countries presents some positive results regarding SWDs’
inclusion in higher education. For example, a study carried out in four Ethiopian universities
found that instructors were willing to provide accommodations (Abdella, 2018). Furthermore,
studies in the United States and Spain found that faculty generally had positive attitudes toward
SWDs (Polo Sánchez et al., 2018; Sniatecki et al., 2015), and a study in Taiwan found they had
3

positive attitudes toward inclusive education in general (Wang, 2020). Taken collectively, these
data points highlight minimal favorable outcomes for student inclusion and reveal a need for
greater focus on faculty supports and teaching strategies.
Mexico’s HEIs represent a unique and timely research base for innovation and change.
While it may be difficult to gather data from Mexican HEIs due to a lack of systematic collection
of information (Torres et al., 2019), research directs attention to limited practices and policies
that would eliminate inequity for SWDs (Cruz-Vadillo & Alvarado, 2017; Pérez-Castro, 2019).
Though people with disabilities or significant limitations make up a numerous minority in
Mexico, 16.5% of the population (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [INEGI], 2020),
the educational inequities among them are significant. Nearly one in five do not receive a formal
education (INEGI, 2017), and illiteracy is four times as high as in the general population (INEGI,
2020). These data showcase considerable educational gaps people with disabilities in Mexico
experience.
Research conducted in Mexican universities suggests that SWDs’ educational exclusion
is prevalent and considered widely systemic. Cruz-Vadillo and Alvarado (2017) classified
Mexican HEIs into three types: (a) those where SWDs are invisible, (b) those that regard
disability solely as a medical condition, and (c) those that implement accommodations to address
physical barriers while largely neglecting academic obstacles. The authors suggested that
Mexican HEIs that provide accommodations do so by considering only architectural
infrastructure while neglecting pedagogical and curricular flexibility (Cruz-Vadillo & Alvarado,
2017). Additionally, due to a lack of institutional regulations and policies, definitions for key
concepts, such as disability, accommodations, reasonable adjustments, and inclusive education,
vary and are subject to faculty interpretation (Francis et al., 2021). Consequently, the decision to
4

provide academic accommodations is left up to instructors’ ability and willingness (López
Arriaga, 2020).
Mexico has subscribed to international treaties and has federal legislation protecting the
rights of people with disabilities; however, it has failed to regulate HEIs to guarantee SWDs’
right to an inclusive education. The Mexican government signed the Salamanca Statement and
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Francis et al., 2021),
and Mexican legislation, such as the Constitution (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 1917), the
General Law for the Inclusion of People with Disabilities (Diario Oficial de la Federación,
2005), the Federal Law to Prevent and Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination (Diario Oficial de
la Federación, 2014), and the General Law for Higher Education (Diario Oficial de la
Federación, 2021), promote the right to education for all citizens, including the right to inclusive
education at all levels for SWDs. The signing of documents such as the Yucatán Statement
(UNAM, 2008), stating the commitment by public and private universities to ensure the right of
SWDs to higher education, shows that despite political intent, there is a lack of accountability,
regulation, and mechanisms to translate mandates into clear rules that guide implementation
(Francis et al., 2021; López Arriaga, 2020; Pérez-Castro, 2019). The shortage of resources
committed to this issue further compounds the problem, as the Mexican Secretariat of Education
recently cut budgetary support for SWDs by 60% (Mexicanos Primero, 2022).
Mexican higher education has been slower than other educational levels to implement
inclusive practices (Torres et al., 2019). There are 3,511,892 university students studying in
person for undergraduate degrees in the country, of whom 42,124 reported a disability (1.19% of
the total student population; ANUIES, 2021). Cruz-Vadillo and Alvarado (2017) determined that
out of the 53 public universities they studied, only 12 reported programs, activities, or policies to
5

include SWDs. Not surprisingly, reports show that economic participation for people with
disabilities is 38% versus 67% in the general population (INEGI, 2020).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore the personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors influencing Mexican higher education faculty’s delivery of inclusive teaching
methodologies for SWDs. It provides research-based recommendations to eliminate academic
barriers for SWDs with the aim of driving equity and inclusion in higher education. Finally, it
aimed to identify future areas of research on this topic. This study addressed the following
research questions:
1. What are the attitudes of faculty regarding teaching students with disabilities and
inclusive education?
2. What are the experiences of faculty regarding teaching students with disabilities and
inclusive education?
3. What organizational factors influence faculty delivery of inclusive teaching
methodologies for students with disabilities?
Importance of the Study
Failure to guarantee an inclusive higher education for SWDs can precipitate academic
attrition and exclusion from employment opportunities. Though research suggests education has
a positive impact on job attainment (Ballo, 2020; Cimera et al., 2018; Grigal et al., 2011;
Lamichhane & Okubo, 2014), lower higher education attendance rates and non-completion of an
undergraduate degree are common among people with disability. This threatens the possibility of
SWDs experiencing a meaningful and satisfactory employment history (Berrigan et al., 2020).
The effect of this inequity has considerable consequences. For example, Buckup (2009)
6

estimated that the cost of excluding people with disabilities from the workforce is between 3%
and 7% of a country’s gross domestic product, suggesting that failure to address this problem can
have a negative impact on a macroeconomic level.
This study contributes to improving inclusion and equity for SWDs in Mexican HEIs by
describing personal, behavioral, and environmental influences on faculty’s delivery of inclusive
teaching methodologies, thus eliminating academic barriers for these students. Furthermore, this
research serves to lead the conversation in drawing more attention to these underserved students,
potentially driving policy changes that could have a positive impact at a national level. Finally,
because there is a dearth of data on the topic in Mexico, findings are significant in advancing
achievement and participation for this population.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Social cognitive theory seeks to explain human behavior through the triadic reciprocity of
three forms of human agency: personal, behavioral, and environmental (Bandura, 2001). Social
cognitive theory serves to explore the different elements involved in faculty’s delivery of
inclusive teaching methodologies for SWDs, such as personal (e.g., perceived self-efficacy of
their ability to implement inclusive methodologies, knowledge, and attitudes toward disability);
behavioral (e.g., providing accommodations and implementing inclusive teaching
methodologies); and environmental or social factors (e.g., the predominant cultural model of
disability and institutional policies regarding inclusion).
The study was also informed by critical disability theory, an interdisciplinary theoretical
framework that combines ideas from disability studies and critical theory (Hall, 2019; Procknow
et al., 2017). Critical disability theory studies disability from a cultural, social, and political
perspective (Hall, 2019) and facilitates the understanding of the relationship among disability,
7

impairment, and society (Hosking, 2008). This theory emerged as a reaction to the prevailing
medical model, which defines disability as a personal characteristic resulting from a physical or
mental limitation. In challenging the study of disability from a purely medical standpoint, critical
disability theory aligns with the more recent social model, which views disability as a social
construct resulting from the relationship between personal impairment and the social
environment, which can cause physical, institutional, or attitudinal barriers that collectively
promote disadvantages and exclusion (Hall, 2019; Hosking, 2008). Examining the problem using
critical disability theory focuses on contextual barriers rather than personal limitations.
Social cognitive theory and critical disability theory served as frameworks to guide the
study and, through a qualitative approach, revealed the issues of attitudes, behavior, and
organizational factors that influence faculty’s delivery of inclusive teaching methodologies in
higher education. Key information was gathered through surveys, interviews, and document
analysis, facilitating the in-depth exploration and examination of these factors.
Definitions
The following definitions are key to understanding the study.
Ableism: Ableism encompasses beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that discriminate against
individuals with a disability, considering them less valuable than abled-bodied or so-called
normal individuals (Hall, 2019; Procknow et al., 2017). Ableism can take the forms of behaviors
(e.g., lack of compliance, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.), attitudes, or
policies (Cambridge University Press, n.d.-a).
Agency: According to Bandura (2001), agency is a person’s capacity to intentionally
create and direct actions toward a specific goal. Agency encompasses a person’s capacities,
8

beliefs, and self-regulatory capabilities, which enable them, among other things, to adapt to
change.
Attitudes: Allport (1935) defined attitudes as “a mental and neural state of readiness,
organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s
response to all objects and situations with which it is related” (p. 6). Additionally, according to
Pickens (2005), attitudes encompass beliefs, feelings, and motivations.
Disability: According to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(United Nations General Assembly, 2007), people with disabilities include “those who have
long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various
barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”
(p. 36).
Inclusive education: Inclusion is a process that is concerned with the identification and
removal of barriers to drive the participation and success of all students, placing particular
emphasis on those who are at risk of marginalization (Ainscow & Miles, 2009).
Inequity: According to Cambridge University Press (n.d.-b), inequity refers to “the
quality of being unfair, or something that is not fair or equal.”
Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy beliefs are a person’s conviction in their capabilities to
accomplish a task (Bandura, 2000). According to Bandura (1993), “Efficacy beliefs influence
how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave” (p. 118).
Organization of the Dissertation
The present dissertation consists of five chapters. The first chapter outlines the problem
of practice and the context of inequity for SWDs in Mexican HEIs. Additionally, it describes the
importance of the study, research questions, theoretical framework, research methodology, and
9

definitions of central concepts. Chapter Two contains the conceptual and theoretical frameworks
and the literature review that frames the problem of practice. Chapter Three depicts the study’s
methodology, including data collection methods and participants. Chapter Four describes the
study’s data analysis and findings, detailing what the research revealed for the three research
questions and a discussion for each. Finally, Chapter Five presents research-based
recommendations to eliminate academic barriers for SWDs and identifies future areas of
potential research on this topic.
10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter outlines the theoretical frameworks that guide this study, describing social
cognitive theory and critical disability theory as frames through which to consider the problem of
practice. Additionally, it details the conceptual framework developed from the theory, which
serves to structure the present research. Finally, the chapter reviews relevant literature related to
the problem of practice, highlighting the different disability models, the current state of disability
and higher education in Mexico, and inclusive teaching practices in higher education for SWD.
Conceptual Framework
This study utilizes social cognitive theory as its principal theoretical framework,
informed by some of the key assumptions of critical disability theory. The following paragraphs
will outline these two frameworks as they relate to the present research.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory states that human behavior functions through a model of triadic
reciprocity where personal, behavioral, and environmental factors bidirectionally influence each
other (Bandura, 1989b). The first part of the model asserts that personal factors, such as
cognitive, affective, and biological processes, can affect behavior and actions and, in turn, can
modify a person’s physiological and emotional state (Bandura, 1989b, 2011). For example, an
instructor’s beliefs and assumptions about disability and inclusive education will likely impact
their behavior toward a disabled student; conversely, an instructor’s experience teaching SWDs
can influence their perception and preconceived notions on the matter. The second part of the
triadic reciprocity model involves personal factors interacting with environmental influences
(Bandura, 1989b). For instance, contextual factors such as mass media and other cultural artifacts
can mold a person’s beliefs and perceptions regarding disability. However, personal
11

characteristics can also modify the environment: a person’s physical disability can drive changes
in their surrounding infrastructure. Finally, the third part of the model involves behavioral and
environmental factors reciprocally influencing each other (Bandura, 1989b). The environment
can shape a person’s actions, but perhaps more significant in social cognitive theory is the notion
that a person has the capability, through their behavior, to modify their context to suit their
objectives.
Central to social cognitive theory is the idea of human agency, a person’s capacity to
create and direct actions toward a specific goal (Bandura, 2001). According to Bandura (2000),
individuals are active participants in the occurrences of their lives; they are both created by and
creators of their environment. The most significant contributor to personal agency is self-
efficacy, or the belief in one’s capabilities to control behavior and environment (Bandura, 2001),
which directly impacts an individual’s motivation and defines their level of effort and
perseverance when facing a task (Bandura, 1989a, 1989b; Schunk & Usher, 2019). Four sources
of information are key in judging one’s self-efficacy: experiences of mastery, vicarious
experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1977, 1989b, 1993). In
education, research shows a teacher’s self-efficacy in their instructional capability is central to
their motivation to create positive classroom environments (Bandura, 1993); this is important
when facing a task that could be perceived as challenging, such as teaching SWD. In addition to
the critical concepts of agency and self-efficacy, Bandura’s learning model is also a significant
contribution to the field.
A key proposition in social cognitive theory is that learning occurs by performing tasks
(enactive learning) and observing others (vicarious learning; Schunk & Usher, 2019). This type
of learning allows a single person to model behaviors and attitudes to others either in person or
12

remotely, for example, using technology (Bandura, 1989b). Vicarious learning through social
modeling is relevant to how individuals learn to treat people with disabilities, as this can be
observed socially or through different media; additionally, it is how behaviors and attitudes are
learned and perpetuated.
Critical Disability Theory
Critical disability theory is an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that combines
concepts from disability studies and critical theory (Hall, 2019). Critical disability theory
emerged as a result of the disability activism movements of the 1970s and the academic thought
of the Frankfurt School of critical theory in the 1960s (Hall, 2019). The theory is a recent
phenomenon that gained traction in the late 1990s and is widely recognized as the foundation
driving disability studies (Clark, 2022). Critical disability theory informs this study’s theoretical
framework, as it examines disability from the point of view of the relationship between personal
and environmental factors and how these influence and interact with each other, often in the
presence of contextual barriers.
Critical disability theory defines disability as a social construct that results from the
relationship among individual impairment, personal response to it, and structural barriers in the
environment (Hosking, 2008). These physical, institutional, and attitudinal barriers create an
inherently ableist society that leads to inequity and exclusion in social, economic, political, and
educational contexts (Hall, 2019; Hosking, 2008; Tihić, 2019). Additionally, critical disability
theory questions the idea of normalcy and calls for democratic participation regardless of ability.
Accordingly, its authors point to the need for systemic responses at all three levels: personal,
behavioral, and environmental (Hosking, 2008). In addition to rehabilitation and disability
prevention, critical disability theory calls for change at a systemic level, where policy would
13

guarantee disability rights, value participation and diversity, and protect those at the intersection
of vulnerable groups (Hosking, 2008).
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework and the interaction among personal,
behavioral, and environmental factors.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

14

Review of the Literature
This literature review highlights critical factors addressing the inequity SWDs face in
Mexican HEIs, framed through social cognitive theory. First, it defines disability and the two
main cultural models that have served to understand the concept and develop actions. Next, the
review outlines essential aspects of disability and higher education in Mexico, followed by a
description of inclusive teaching methodologies. Finally, it outlines the environmental factors
that impact faculty performance and disposition, the intricate relationship between behavioral
and contextual influences as they relate to the inclusion of SWD, and personal influences and
their relation to the problem of inequity in HEIs.
Framing Disability
The concept of disability aids in framing the problem of practice, as its conceptualization
influences attitudes and interventions toward disabled individuals (Bogart et al., 2022; Pearson,
2009). Furthermore, social assumptions regarding the origin and treatment of disability can
impact social, educational, and political practices (Bal et al., 2020; Bogart et al., 2022; Dirth &
Branscombe, 2017).
Beliefs regarding disability have evolved historically and have varying influences,
including the intersection of religion, socio-cultural, and political factors (Ware & Schuelka,
2019). Though the literature points to two established disability models, the medical and social
models, research suggests they are not mutually exclusive and can coexist within a given culture
(Bogart et al., 2022; Ware & Schuelka, 2019).
The Medical Model of Disability
The medical model consists of assumptions that regard disability as an individual
characteristic. According to this view, ability is located within a person’s body and mind; hence,
15

any physical or mental limitation is regarded as a deficiency or illness (Bal et al., 2020; Hosking,
2008; Smart & Smart, 2006). Because this view limits the notion of disability to a biological
perspective (Bal et al., 2020) dictated by cultural and statistical norms (Bogart et al., 2022), it
fails to recognize the person with disabilities as a social being with human rights (Lyons, 2011).
The view that only able-bodied individuals are worthy of social participation has promoted a
culture that discards and rejects differences, impeding equity and inclusion (Cooper, 2017).
According to critical disability theory, the medical model is inherently ableist, idealizing
the norm and dismissing individuals with impairments as less valuable or incomplete (Hall,
2019; Procknow et al., 2017; Tihić, 2019). Because ableism has been the dominant social
conviction, it has impacted how society treats disabled people, hindering their access to
fundamental human rights, such as education and employment. In addition, situating disability
within the individual emphasizes treatments and solutions that attempt to cure or normalize
disabled people rather than promote inclusion and accessibility (Bogart et al., 2022).
Disabled individuals with the highest support needs have been particularly affected by
ableism because, often, their communication challenges make it difficult for them to voice their
needs, preferences, and opinions (Lyons, 2011). Additionally, the stigma of being dependent and
helpless can further reinforce discrimination. Studies suggest these individuals have limited
opportunities for participation and self-determination, and the systemic and legal overprotection
negates their right to independence (Pelleboer-Gunnink et al., 2021). These beliefs harm their
sense of belonging and negate their access to fundamental rights, such as education.
An entrenched medical view of disability impacts educational approaches and practices.
Due to its individualistic nature, this perspective situates students with a disability as passive
participants in need of an intervention (Bal et al., 2020), neglecting more complex systemic and
16

institutional issues (Matthews, 2009). According to this model, only an expert can treat SWDs,
hence the widespread adoption of special education and its tendency to segregate individuals
with special needs (Matthews, 2009). Contradictorily, research has found that multiplying
opportunities for contact with disabled individuals improved attitudes toward this population
(Bogart et al., 2022).
The Social Model of Disability
The social model shifts the concept of disability from the individual to the interaction
between people with limitations and the barriers they face in navigating their environment (U.N.
General Assembly, 2007). This view considers disability a social construct whereby individuals
are not disabled by physical or mental limitations but by physical, social, or attitudinal obstacles
(Bogart et al., 2022; Lyons, 2011). With a focus on social factors rather than individual
limitations, this model advocates for detecting and eliminating contextual barriers and
developing inclusive policies and civil rights (Dirth & Branscombe, 2017).
As its name implies, the social model places responsibility on society to remedy
limitations on participation and learning (Bal et al., 2020; Bogart et al., 2022). Accordingly,
research suggests social model beliefs align with the detection of discrimination and more
positive attitudes toward disability (Bogart et al., 2022). Because of its contributions to
understanding the social implications of disability, the effects of the social model on education
are notable.
Changing the focal point from the student to the environment implicates the entire
educational system in its responsibility to increase inclusion and drive accessibility. Hence, the
focus shifts from trying to fix an individual student to eliminating barriers to learning and
participation, such as increasing curricular flexibility and accessibility (Bal et al., 2020;
17

Matthews, 2009; Pearson, 2009). Data points to the relevance of faculty’s model of disability in
creating or eliminating educational barriers (Bal et al., 2020). Though research points to the
social model of disability as a path for inclusion, many countries have yet to incorporate these
views into their culture, policies, and practices.
Disability in Mexico
Gaining access to reliable data regarding disability in Mexico is a challenge due to the
inconsistent methodologies used in gathering demographic information. The National Institute of
Statistics and Geography (INEGI) is an autonomous organization charged with conducting
censuses every 10 years. However, because the concept of disability has historically been
construed in different ways and census methodology adjusted accordingly, data collection has
not been consistent throughout the years, resulting in statistics that cannot be used for
comparison (Comisión Nacional para la Mejora Continua de la Educación, 2022). Disability was
first introduced in the 2000 national census, though this initial attempt lacked conceptual and
methodological rigor (Comisión Nacional para la Mejora Continua de la Educación, 2022). Ten
years later, the 2010 national census integrated polar questions from the Washington Group on
Disability Statistics.
The latest census in 2020 used similar, but not identical, questions also provided by the
Washington Group on Disability Statistics, but this time with four response options regarding an
individual’s difficulty in walking or climbing; seeing even with glasses; hearing even with a
hearing aid; bathing, dressing, or eating independently; remembering or concentrating; and
speaking or communicating. The possible options pertained to presenting no difficulty,
presenting little difficulty, presenting significant difficulty, and being unable to perform the task.
For the purposes of the data presented by the INEGI, the existence of a disability was considered
18

if the response indicated the latter two options; this added up to 4.9% of the population, or
6,179,890 people (Comisión Nacional para la Mejora Continua de la Educación, 2022).
However, data have been presented by the same institute, stating an additional 1.3% (1,590,583
people) have a mental condition that causes limitations, and 11.1% (13,934,448 people) have
other types of limitations. Taken together, 16.5% (20,838,108 people) have a disability or
significant limitation (INEGI, 2020). The unclear and inconsistent nature of the data collection
and presentation complicates any attempt at its analysis and comparison.
An additional source of information is provided by the Secretariat of National Education,
which gathers its own data on the number of disabled students registered in formal education.
Public and private schools of all levels are required to submit a yearly record of the number of
SWDs; however, the criteria to determine whether a student has a disability is not clear or
consistent, so results are unreliable (Comisión Nacional para la Mejora Continua de la
Educación, 2022). According to this record, there are 42,124 SWDs pursuing an undergraduate
degree in the country, out of whom 1.19% are reported as having a disability (ANUIES, 2021).
Data show that individuals with disability living in Mexico face inequity in educational
and economic outcomes. For example, the 2020 national census shows people with disabilities
attend formal education for an average of 5.9 years, compared to 9.9 years for the general
population, and 20.4% of people with disabilities are illiterate versus 3.7% in the general
population (INEGI, 2020). Furthermore, there is a diminished economic participation rate, 38%
versus 67% in the general population (INEGI, 2020). The Mexican government’s lack of budget
allocation for disability and inclusive education further compounds these inequities.
A special report by the National Commission on Human Rights (Comisión Nacional de
Derechos Humanos, 2019) found a dearth of public financial resources designated for inclusive
19

education across all Mexican states. According to this report, the amounts allocated and labeled
for inclusion were mainly for rehabilitation purposes, and a large proportion was destined for a
single private non-profit organization. Furthermore, according to this report, states fail to
implement inclusive education at any level; any accommodations they report are centered around
primary education and involve infrastructure adjustments, there is no mention of faculty training
or inclusive curriculum development (Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, 2019).
Additionally, most of the supports focus on physical and visual disabilities and are developed
from the perspective of the medical model of disability. Taken together, data suggest there is
insufficient funding for the educational development of people with disabilities in Mexico, in
addition to a lack of reliable and comparable statistics.
Higher Education in Mexico
The Mexican higher education system comprises the following degrees: technical or
associate, bachelor, specialist, master, and doctorate (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2021). In
the higher education system, there are multiple subsystems (such as public institutions, which
can be state or federal, technological universities, intercultural universities, private institutions,
and normal schools), with considerable variation among them in terms of financing and
government intervention (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD],
2019).
The country’s 3,762 HEIs (OECD, 2019) are governed by the General Higher Education
Law, declared in 2021 (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2021). This law guarantees the right to
higher education and the state’s obligation to provide it. Though it is the first law in higher
education to address issues of equity, opportunity, and inclusion, at the time of this study, there
were still no regulations to implement these measures. Additionally, government financing is
20

only available for public institutions, and data shows that HEIs frequently allocate it for basic
expenses (OECD, 2019).
The OECD (2019) found that in Mexico, a higher education degree improves the
possibility of job market participation and improves salaries, which are an average of 78% higher
for college graduates than high school graduates. However, this study found that Mexico has the
lowest rate of adults holding a higher education degree (17%) in the OECD countries (37%). If
current trends continue, it is estimated that 26% of young Mexicans will hold a higher education
degree (OECD, 2019). In addition to the diminished rate of higher education attainment,
academic quality is difficult to establish in Mexican HEIs.
The issue of educational level in Mexican HEIs is complex, as external accreditation has
historically been voluntary, creating significant academic differences among institutions (OECD,
2019). Additionally, research points to lectures as the primary teaching method in HEIs, in
addition to a lack of innovative and active teaching methodologies. The predominance of part-
time over full-time faculty and the lack of training opportunities for them further compound the
problem (OECD, 2019).
Inclusive Teaching Methodologies
Students with disabilities are diverse individuals with varying requirements, so believing
they are a homogenous group with comparable needs can limit possible educational interventions
(Collins et al., 2019; Newham, 2020). Research points to two different approaches in addressing
SWDs’ needs: from an individual perspective, where any limitation requires personalized
solutions, or from the social perspective, which views limitations as contextual barriers derived
from a deficient learning environment that does not adequately address learner diversity (Rose et
21

al., 2006). Data points to the relevance of both perspectives, highlighting proactive and reactive
methods.
Research suggests that inclusive teaching requires both proactive and reactive strategies.
On the one hand, proactive strategies involve planning for a diverse group of students from the
inception of curricular design, as opposed to the traditional curricular design, which limits
students who fall outside the norm (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017). On the other hand, reactive
strategies are implemented once the student arrives in the classroom, and individual supports
need to be given, adjusting the curriculum and activities to the students’ needs. Studies show
higher education cannot rely on either of these strategies alone but must strive for a combination
of the two (Edwards et al., 2022).
Under the social model of disability, proactive strategies involve methods to promote
inclusive curriculum design, benefiting and maximizing learning for all students (Bunbury, 2020;
Collins et al., 2019). By planning for diversity from the beginning, faculty can avoid the need for
many reactive accommodations (Capp, 2017) and reduce barriers for students with hidden
disabilities. Universal Design for Learning is a well-known framework that seeks to implement
these proactive strategies from the planning stage.
Universal Design for Learning is derived from the architectural concept of universal
design, which aims to facilitate the use of products and spaces for the greatest variety of people,
eliminating the need for individualized adaptations later on (Story, 2001). Universal Design for
Learning maintains the same proactive, universal, and inclusive approaches to diversity and
translates them to learning environments (Capp, 2017; Rose et al., 2006). The design’s three
principles put inclusion at the center of instruction: multiple ways of representing knowledge,
multiple ways of expressing understanding, and multiple ways of engaging students (Capp, 2017;
22

Rose et al., 2006), (Moriarty, 2007). Though universal approaches to designing learning
environments are important, planning ahead for students’ needs is not always possible.
Reactive or responsive strategies include the provision of individual accommodations
such as assistive technology or reasonable adjustments (Bunbury, 2020). Assistive technologies
are personal elements, such as wheelchairs or specialized computers, that are highly specialized
for students’ needs and personal use (Rose et al., 2006). According to the United Nations
General Assembly (2007), reasonable adjustments are
necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate
or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities
the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms. (p. 4)
This includes, for example, adjusting teaching strategies, adapting learning materials and
activities, or providing extended time for assessments. Though SWDs require individual
accommodations, studies suggest that depending exclusively on reactive accommodations
according to disability type is ineffective (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017) and call for integrating
inclusive policies and practices that benefit all students, avoiding the need for excessive
individualized support (Collins et al., 2019).
Diverse classrooms raise important pedagogical challenges, which HEIs cannot address
solely through reactive measures such as curricular adaptations for individual students and put an
undue burden on faculty (Capp, 2017; Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017). Data show the combination
of both methods is the most helpful in helping SWDs succeed, and HEIs should favor the
development of inclusive curricula using Universal Design for Learning, minimizing but not
23

eliminating the need for individual accommodations (Bunbury, 2020; Collins et al., 2019; Griful-
Freixenet et al., 2017).
Disability and Inclusive Higher Education
The concept of inclusive education stems from the conviction that education is a
fundamental human right and, as such, its purpose was to eliminate barriers that impede learning
and participation for all students (Ainscow & Miles, 2009). According to Ainscow and Miles
(2009), understanding inclusion requires four components: (a) it is an unfinished process, as
there can always be ways to improve on providing accessibility and welcoming differences; (b)
its primary concern is the removal of barriers; (c) it is concerned with the “presence,
participation, and achievement of all students” (p. 3); and (d) it stresses the attention of
marginalized groups, such as SWDs. However, data suggest that both SWDs and their non-
disabled peers benefit from inclusive learning environments (Ainscow & Miles, 2009; Madriaga
et al., 2010). Collins et al. (2019) highlighted the need for a shift toward Universal Design for
Learning and away from individual accommodations, emphasizing methodologies that promote
all students’ participation and learning. While experiences of inclusive education are widespread
at primary school levels, the education system seems to become less inclusive as students
advance in their schooling (Björnsdóttir, 2017).
Universities worldwide have created offices to support SWDs’ needs in response to laws
and regulations. However, research suggests this may not be enough, as providing access to
education differs from guaranteeing SWDs’ participation and achievement according to the
principles of inclusive education (Moriña, 2022). Furthermore, while inclusive teaching
methodologies have proven valuable for HEIs, the literature points to several environmental,
personal, and behavioral factors preventing inclusive higher education. For example, data show
24

ableist university systems encourage rigid and inflexible curricula (Moriña, 2022), faculty lack
the knowledge and awareness regarding these students’ needs (Volpe et al., 2022), and they are
often unable or unwilling to implement inclusive teaching methodologies (Moriña, 2022).
Environmental Factors for Effective Inclusion in Higher Education
The ubiquitous presence of ableism in society guides the prevailing belief system
governing higher education systems. This is evidenced by HEIs’ treatment of SWDs as a
homogeneous population and the assumption that students with the same disabilities have similar
educational needs, disregarding individual differences and experiences (Collins et al., 2019).
This emphasis on the medical model forces SWDs to adapt to environments and instructional
practices that were not designed with them in mind (Tinklin et al., 2004). Studies in Mexican
universities suggest that exclusionary practices are due to a deficit view of disability (Cruz-
Vadillo, 2016), where SWDs are expected to adapt to the status quo, and normalization is the
standard (Cruz-Vadillo & Alvarado, 2017). Even HEIs that consider adjustments and
accommodations offer them from an ableist perspective, where admission depends on whether
the HEI considers the type of disability to be a match to the major being studied (Cruz-Vadillo &
Alvarado, 2017). Furthermore, data show rigid, inflexible curricula further compound the
problem (Pérez-Castro, 2019), making evident the common belief that universities often resist
change (Torres et al., 2019).
Conversely, the literature suggests the relevance of the social model, which stresses
making HEIs inclusive by making systemic and structural changes (Collins et al., 2019; Moriña,
2017). This view recommends educational environments that are conducive to all students’
participation and achievement by implementing inclusive teaching methodologies and flexible
curricula. Because diversity is considered an asset that will potentially benefit the wide variety of
25

needs present in HEI, inclusive educational strategies are preferred to individual adjustments and
accommodations, which can prove costlier and more impractical (Collins et al., 2019; Moriña,
2017). Though research suggests this path to inclusive HEIs is the most beneficial, policy and
practice do not reflect this belief (Collins et al., 2019).
Laws and regulations regarding SWDs in HEIs vary by country. Many nations require
HEIs to offer supports and accommodations, often through an office of disability services. As
research has shown, however, access on its own is not enough to guarantee SWDs’ achievement
and success, and universities must ensure inclusive education for all students’ benefit (Moriña,
2017). Research shows that even when HEIs have rules and policies, they are not consistently
enforced or abided by. In Mexico, despite laws to drive SWDs’ educational access, there is a
lack of regulation guiding HEIs or ensuring accountability (López Arriaga, 2020). Studies show
that few universities have policies to guide the implementation of accommodations, let alone
train faculty in inclusive teaching strategies (Cruz-Vadillo & Alvarado, 2017; Francis et al.,
2021).
Faculty training has repeatedly been highlighted as a central element in the path to
inclusive higher education (Collins et al., 2019; Lombardi et al., 2013; Moriña, 2017, 2022).
Research shows that training is key to changing faculty attitudes and increasing commitment to
the success of SWDs (Leyser et al., 2011; Lombardi et al., 2011; Lombardi et al., 2013; Wang,
2020). Collins et al. (2019) found that academic staff was unknowledgeable in interacting with
SWDs, evident in their practice because they lacked the skills or awareness to attend to these
students’ needs. Researchers agree that there is an eminent need to train faculty in pedagogical
and instructional strategies to teach in inclusive environments, such as differentiated instruction
26

and Universal Design for Learning (Moriña, 2017). Despite the importance of training, HEIs are
reticent to commit resources to this end.
Studies in Mexican HEIs show insufficient financial resources allocated to providing
accommodations for SWDs (López Arriaga, 2020). In other countries, such as the United States
or Spain, despite laws and regulations stating otherwise, the commitment of resources proves
insufficient as SWDs are not earning degrees at the same rate as their non-disabled peers
(Fernández-Gámez et al., 2021) and struggle due to inaccessibility in infrastructure and course
materials (Madriaga et al., 2010). In addition to difficulties with contextual factors such as
disability models, policies, training needs, and resource allocation, change will not happen
without addressing faculty’s personal and behavioral factors.
Personal Factors for Effective Inclusion in Higher Education
Research suggests several personal factors could affect faculty’s implementation of
inclusive teaching practices, such as knowledge and competencies, attitudes, and self-efficacy
beliefs (Zhang et al., 2018). Research has found that these barriers have a significant impact on
the disadvantages SWDs face (Langørgen et al., 2020).
Data indicate that achieving inclusive education requires faculty participation (Batanero,
2013). However, implementing inclusive educational practices in teaching diverse classrooms
requires a certain amount of knowledge and competence. Nevertheless, studies suggest that
higher education faculty lack the practical and conceptual understanding to relate to SWDs
(Langørgen et al., 2020; Martins et al., 2018). For example, research reveals that faculty are
unfamiliar with disability rights and national or institutional policies and regulations (Carballo et
al., 2021; O’Donnell et al., 2012). Furthermore, data points to instructors’ nescience regarding
the concepts of inclusive education, universal design for learning, and the social model of
27

disability (Carballo et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2018). In addition to being unfamiliar with
disability, they tend to use antiquated language and concepts that refer to the medical model
(Carballo et al., 2021; O’Donnell et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2018). Collins et al. (2019) found that
academics did not receive enough information to assist SWDs; their students, accordingly,
reported a lack of awareness and help from their professors.
Due to faculty’s lack of experience in teaching SWDs (Martins et al., 2018), the need for
skills training in addition to conceptual knowledge becomes relevant (Alnahdi, 2020). Several
studies highlight preparing higher education faculty in instructional practice and supporting their
continued training in inclusive education (Alnahdi, 2020; Li & Cheung, 2021; Moriña, 2017).
Instructors should be competent in their discipline and in the practice of teaching diverse
students (Moriña, 2017). Research shows training is effective in developing inclusive
instructional methodologies and improving faculty’s attitudes toward disabilities.
Teachers’ negative attitudes toward disabilities have been identified as one of SWDs’
main barriers to learning and participation (Carballo et al., 2021). Specifically, negative feelings
about inclusive education (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002) and negative attitudes toward
adjustments and accommodations (Collins et al., 2019) have proven to be important factors that
hinder faculty engagement and commitment to their students. Collins et al. (2019) suggested that
faculty’s reluctance to provide accommodations is due to the belief that SWDs could become
dependent on and take advantage of the supports provided (Collins et al., 2019). While faculty
attitudes toward disability and accommodations have been found to play a critical role in
inclusive HEI, data points to various elements that could influence these attitudes.
Some studies have found that demographic factors are key in attitudes toward disability.
For example, some authors agree that female faculty in the field of education tend to have better
28

attitudes (Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Wang, 2020). Additionally, having more years of
experience teaching SWDs (Emmers et al., 2020; Lombardi & Murray, 2011; Wang, 2020) and
increased contact with SWDs (Bogart et al., 2022) also predict improved attitudes toward
disability. Furthermore, the disability model a person holds influences attitudes toward SWDs.
For example, Bogart et al. (2022) found that individuals with negative attitudes toward disability
tended to have stronger medical model views and asserted that medical model beliefs can predict
negative attitudes toward disability more accurately than any demographic factor (Bogart et al.,
2022). Through training, disability models can change, and this, in turn, can improve attitudes
(Bogart et al., 2022).
Faculty members’ beliefs about the ideal image of a university student and their
professional role conflict with their implementation of inclusive practices. For example, research
has revealed that teachers’ perception of what a young professional should look like is not in
accordance with a person who has a physical or sensory impairment (Langørgen et al., 2020).
Additionally, faculty do not believe SWDs should be able to engage in any field of study but that
their choices should be restricted according to their limitations (Rodríguez-Martín & Álvarez-
Arregui, 2015). This deficit view of disability leads to SWDs having to put in extra effort to
prove their worth as professionals. Furthermore, academics’ perceived role as subject matter
experts and not as disability experts leads to a reluctance to involve themselves with and support
diverse learners (Langørgen et al., 2020; O’Donnell et al., 2012). Their unwillingness to provide
accommodations is influenced by their perception of an academic’s obligations, which do not
include making the time for SWDs (Langørgen et al., 2020; O’Donnell et al., 2012). Though
faculty do not consider themselves disability experts, research points to their perceived self-
29

efficacy beliefs in practicing inclusive teaching methodologies as an influence on their attitudes
toward disabled students.
While self-efficacy can significantly impact faculty’s attitudes toward disability and
inclusive teaching methodologies, key personal factors are also influences. Research suggests
that perceived self-efficacy in teaching SWDs is strongly affected by faculty’s sense of mastery
in implementing inclusive teaching methodologies (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Additionally,
experience, training, and previous contact with SWDs improve self-efficacy beliefs (Li &
Cheung, 2021; Subban et al., 2021). Increased confidence in their teaching practices drives more
positive attitudes and a higher willingness to teach SWDs (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Forlin
et al., 2011; Li & Cheung, 2021). Increased self-efficacy has been found to lower stress among
teachers, which can benefit their teaching decisions, classroom environment, and student-teacher
interactions (Love et al., 2020).
According to social cognitive theory, there is a reciprocal interaction among personal,
environmental, and behavioral factors. In this sense, research has shown that attitudes,
knowledge, and self-efficacy beliefs influence and are influenced by behavior. For example,
positive attitudes and high self-efficacy beliefs may lead to increased willingness to provide
accommodations (Alsarawi & Sukonthaman, 2021; Benkohila et al., 2020).
Behavioral Factors for Effective Inclusion in Higher Education
Faculty members are central to the implementation of inclusive education practices.
However, studies suggest instructors disregard this responsibility, resisting and even refusing to
provide accommodations for SWDs (Castellanos Daza et al., 2018; Cook et al., 2009; Moriña,
2022; Sarrett, 2018). Research shows higher education faculty engage in behaviors that are
counter-productive for SWDs, such as lecturing at a fast speed and failing to provide access to
30

notes, enough time for readings, and course materials in accessible formats (Madriaga et al.,
2010; Moriña, 2017). Additionally, they fail to apply institutional policies and regulations
(Moriña, 2017).
Despite research showing that instructor’s willingness to provide supports is important
(Fernández-Gámez et al., 2021), faculty believe they should not adapt objectives, content, or
assessment criteria (Rodríguez-Martín & Álvarez-Arregui, 2015). Additionally, they tend to
support certain types of disabilities more than others (Wolman et al., 2004), for example,
students with physical or sensory limitations over those with greater support needs (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002).
Regardless of these negative findings, data point to several factors that increase
willingness to act in favor of SWDs. Examples are confidence in instructional skills (Avramidis
& Norwich, 2002), feeling supported by programs and institutions (Fernández-Gámez et al.,
2021), and training to understand laws and regulations (Lombardi & Murray, 2011). With these
supports, studies have found that instructors are more willing to implement accommodations and
provide supports, diminishing academic barriers for SWDs.
Research by Emmers et al. (2020) found that although attitudes can predict intention,
they cannot predict actual behavior. For example, data suggest a contradiction between
instructors’ reported beliefs and their teaching practices (Langørgen et al., 2020; Lombardi et al.,
2011). Lombardi et al. (2015) conducted an international study that showed that although faculty
showed positive attitudes toward disability and inclusive education, they failed to implement
these inclusive strategies in their practice. Other studies show that faculty have positive attitudes
toward inclusive education in theory but refuse to change their teaching practices toward more
inclusive ones and manifest that diverse students should adapt to the educational system
31

(O’Donnell et al., 2012). Instructors may agree with the policy and simultaneously not
implement it. Another study by Lombardi et al. (2011) found that while faculty felt positively
toward Universal Design for Learning, they did not put it into practice. In this way, faculty may
hold positive views while at the same time rejecting any practical change in their methodologies
and preferring traditional teaching methodologies (O’Donnell et al., 2012).
Conclusion
Mexican SWDs face pervasive academic barriers that exclude them from educational and
employment opportunities. While disability in Mexico is difficult to study due to a systemic
failure to gather and record data, studies point to widespread inequity for SWDs.
Social cognitive theory and critical disability theory serve as frameworks for studying the
willingness of higher education faculty to implement inclusive teaching methodologies, which
research points to as a key factor in achieving more equitable outcomes for SWD. The literature
highlights environmental factors that affect faculty performance, disposition, and behavioral
influences as they relate to their personal beliefs and attitudes in relation to the issue of inequity
in HEI and to SWDs’ inclusion. Social cognitive theory points to faculty being both created and
creators of their environment and, as such, are necessary agents in transforming the reality of
HEIs for SWDs.

32

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to explore the personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors influencing Mexican higher education faculty members’ delivery of inclusive teaching
methodologies for SWDs. Furthermore, it sought to provide research-based recommendations
that could eliminate academic barriers for SWDs, with the aim of driving equity and inclusion in
Mexican higher education. Finally, it aimed to identify future areas of potential research for the
topic.
This chapter presents the methodology used to achieve this purpose in alignment with the
theoretical and conceptual frameworks. First, the chapter will state the research questions,
followed by an overview of the research design, the study’s setting, and the data sources.
Additionally, it will provide a rationale for the data collection procedures and analysis, as well as
a discussion on the study’s credibility, my positionality, ethical considerations, and limitations
and delimitations.
Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. What are the attitudes of faculty regarding teaching SWDs and inclusive education?
2. What are the experiences of faculty regarding teaching SWDs and inclusive
education?
3. What organizational factors influence faculty delivery of inclusive teaching
methodologies for SWDs?
Overview of Methodological Design
This study used a qualitative methodology to explore faculty members’ lived experiences
and understand their points of view. Information was collected through surveys, interviews, and
33

secondary data, triangulating among these data sources to generate insight into the problem of
practice and prevent any researcher bias (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Table 1 provides an
overview of the methods used to address each research question. The survey and the interview
were used to address all research questions, and secondary data helped answer the third research
question.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research question Survey Interview
Secondary
data
What are the attitudes of faculty regarding
teaching students with disabilities and
inclusive education?
X X
What are the experiences of faculty
regarding teaching students with
disabilities and inclusive education?
X X
What organizational factors influence
faculty delivery of inclusive teaching
methodologies for students with
disabilities?
X X X

34

Research Setting
The surveys and interviews took place online, which provided the possibility of reaching
individuals in distant locations. This research studied participants from six HEIs in Mexico: three
private and three public universities from varied regions of the country. These settings were
appropriate to address the research questions because they are among the Mexican HEIs with the
most SWDs reported (ANUIES, 2021) and additionally provide geographic and organizational
diversity.
Data Sources
The data for this study were gathered via surveys, interviews, and secondary data, mainly
document analysis through the universities’ websites. These methods were useful in addressing
the research questions and provided data to inform the problem of practice.
Surveys
According to Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019), surveys, also called questionnaires, are
instruments comprised of questions designed to collect data; they can be applied to respondents
from either a whole population or a sample. Surveys can be administered through various modes,
such as in person, over the phone, or online.
The survey used for this study was implemented online using Qualtrics and includes
items adapted from several existing scales (Forlin et al., 2011; Freer, 2018; Lombardi & Murray,
2011; Rodríguez-Martin & Álvarez-Arregui, 2013; Polo Sánchez & López, 2006; Wang, 2020;
Wolman et al., 2004) which measure attitudes and sentiments of faculty toward disability and
inclusive education. The final instrument consists of 19 mostly open-ended questions and
addresses the following concepts: attitudes, previous experience, and organizational factors. Both
an English version (Appendix A) and a Spanish version (Appendix B) are provided in the
35

appendices, as the surveys were administered in the latter language. Survey responses were
useful in collecting demographic data that served to build rapport with participants during the
interviews. The interviews also addressed some of their survey responses, which helped verify
participants’ answers and increase the study’s credibility and trustworthiness.
Interviews
Interviews consist primarily of open-ended questions and can be semistructured or
unstructured (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019); additionally, follow-up questions or probes can
clarify or obtain additional information (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Interviews allow the
researcher to learn information that cannot be observed, such as beliefs, feelings, and intentions;
they are useful for understanding a person’s lived experience and perspective (Patton, 2002).
The interview protocol for this study used a semistructured approach with an interview
guide (Patton, 2002). This approach helped address the research questions while remaining
conversational and developing a rapport with the interviewees (Patton, 2002). The interview
protocol’s 13 items were aimed to address all three research questions and focus on attitudes,
experience, and organizational factors. An English version (Appendix C) and a Spanish version
(Appendix D) are included in the appendices.
Secondary Data
Secondary data refer to previously existing documents, for example, official or
institutional records, which can be found in a variety of formats, such as physical or digital
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study analyzed organizational documents, specifically policies
and protocols pertaining to SWDs, via the six universities’ websites. Additionally, one of the
participants from Private University 2 voluntarily provided an internal document detailing
inclusive practices in their school, which I also analyzed.
36

Data Collection
Surveys and interviews were applied to the same target population of faculty at six
Mexican HEIs. First, the survey was applied, followed by an in-depth interview to expand on the
information provided and to clarify and explore responses.
The survey data were collected between March and April 2023 and were administered
online using Qualtrics. Non-probabilistic purposeful sampling allowed me to select individuals
who were best able to provide depth and information regarding the research questions (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). According to Pazzaglia et al. (2016), response rates may increase when sending
a key contact person an advance letter explaining the potential benefits of the study. For this
purpose, I wrote to one contact person at each institution using my USC email account. This
person facilitated contact with current, adult, full-time higher education faculty who teach in an
in-person undergraduate program and who could provide meaningful information to answer the
study’s research questions. Potential participants received an email containing the study
information sheet and a link to the Qualtrics Survey. The first survey questions confirmed
participant inclusion criteria and their willingness to be interviewed. If they did not meet the
criteria or declined interview participation, they could not continue answering the survey and
were excluded from the study. If they did meet the criteria and opted to be interviewed, an open-
ended question asked for contact information (name, telephone number, and email). Participants
had a limited timeframe to complete the survey, and their responses’ confidentiality was ensured.
Participants who had yet to complete the survey received reminders, and those who had
concluded it received a thank you email (Pazzaglia et al., 2016).
Of the 29 people contacted, 12 participated. Their survey responses and interviews were
distributed as follows:
37

1. Public University 1: two participants
2. Public University 2: two participants
3. Public University 3: two participants
4. Private University 1: one participant
5. Private University 2: three participants
6. Private University 3: two participants
Interviews took place between March and April of 2023 over Zoom, which facilitated the
recording and transcription of information and allowed full attention to be on the participant
(Patton, 2002). I first contacted the interviewees using the information they submitted through
the survey’s interview solicitation question. I scheduled the interview and sent a link using my
USC Zoom account. I sent an email reminder 24 hours prior to the interview. Before the
interview began, I introduced myself and the study. I then asked for verbal consent to record the
interview. After answering any questions the participant had, I began recording.
I conducted interviews in a controlled and professional environment and ensured
participants were located where they had a strong and stable internet connection with minimal
distractions. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. At the end of the interview, I
thanked the participant for their time and asked if I could contact them in case any questions
came up with the transcription. I offered them a copy of the dissertation once it was published.
Finally, I collected secondary data from the universities’ websites after concluding the
interviews. This analysis allowed me to triangulate the survey and interview information with
that which was publicly available.

38

Data Analysis
Survey
I administered the surveys using Qualtrics, and once I received the data, I exported them
into a spreadsheet for descriptive analysis. I collected demographic information and triangulated
responses with interview and document analysis findings. Some survey questions were recalled
during the interviews for verification and clarification and to obtain further information on an
answer.
Interviews
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended analyzing qualitative data while collecting
them. I analyzed the interviews individually immediately after they took place. I took note of
initial impressions, emerging themes, and possible topics to address in future interviews.
Because interviews took place in Spanish and Zoom does not have transcription available in that
language, the audio was transferred to text using Word. Following the interview, I cleaned up the
transcriptions by replaying the recording to confirm my notes’ accuracy. Additionally, I redacted
personally identifiable information and assigned a pseudonym to each participant. The resulting
transcripts were kept in Spanish to maintain the intended meaning. I developed a codebook using
theory-driven and data-driven codes, with 33 resulting codes and five groups of codes (Appendix
H). I coded the transcripts with the help of Atlas.ti software.
Document Analysis
Document analysis included analyzing university websites and publicly available
organizational policies and procedures. I conducted the search and analysis of these documents
electronically and captured them on a data collection sheet (Appendix E). I gathered data from
six university websites and 17 documents, including institutional policies, codes, and guidelines.
39

Credibility and Trustworthiness
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), credibility and trustworthiness come from the
consistency between the study’s findings and reality, from ensuring findings are believable. The
conscientiousness and rigor of the methodological design enhance both (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
The present study utilized four strategies to increase credibility and trustworthiness. The
first was triangulation using multiple data sources (participants and documents) and multiple
collection methods (surveys, interviews, and secondary data). The second was ensuring transcript
accuracy through the careful review of interview recordings soon after the interview took place.
Third, leaving raw data in Spanish for analysis avoided potential complications by ensuring that
data analysis did not skew the intended meaning. Lastly, I reflected on my positionality to avoid
researcher bias.
The Researcher
I have dedicated my professional life to working with people with disabilities in
educational settings, attempting to reduce the barriers that lead to their exclusion and
stigmatization. Three factors contribute to my interest in researching this topic. First, as the
former coordinator of disability services at a Mexican university, I understand how HEIs’
acculturation of the medical model of disability marginalizes SWDs. Second, in my current role
as dean of the school of education at the same university, I have insight into personal and
contextual challenges faculty face in teaching these students. Finally, as the sister of a person
with a disability, I have witnessed her exclusion from the educational system and understand
faculty’s important role in driving or hindering inclusion.
40

These aspects of my experience can cause biases in my understanding of the problem,
potentially affecting the study, as I could be prone to confirmation bias to certain preconceived
ideas. This risk could be mitigated by recognizing these potential biases and using a solid
methodological design to reinforce the validity and reliability of the study. Additionally, I did not
implement the study at my organization to avoid conflicts of interest and potential influence on
the participants. While personal factors contribute to my understanding of the topic, elements
involving my theory of change are also relevant to my decision to pursue the study.
A theory of change is a collection of ideas and assumptions that serve as a guide when
implementing an intervention and seeking to predict its effects (Dhillon & Vaca, 2018). The
theory of change behind this study has two main assumptions: the first is that society at large is
inherently ableist (Tihić, 2019), and institutions of higher education replicate and perpetuate
discrimination against people with disabilities; the second is that most Mexican higher education
faculty lack the knowledge and willingness to teach SWDs effectively.
Ethics
Ethical considerations are key to the implementation of any study. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) pointed out that the ultimate responsibility when facing ethical dilemmas lies within the
researcher’s values and decisions. Accordingly, I approached the study with the utmost respect
for all participants. Before conducting the study, it was submitted to the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for approval to protect participants’ rights and minimize
potential risks (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Participation in both the interview and survey was voluntary. All participants received
information describing the study, its purpose, information regarding maintaining confidentiality,
and the possibility of withdrawing from the study at any point. Before the interviews, I verbally
41

reminded the participants of the purpose of the study and confirmed their comprehension of the
information provided. All study correspondence utilized my USC email. I provided all
participants with the information sheet for exempt studies (Appendices F and G), which details
the purpose of the study and the voluntary nature of their participation. It also states there was no
obligation to participate, that personal identifying information would be redacted, and that a
pseudonym would be assigned to them for data tracking purposes. Additionally, I advised the
study participants that the raw data would be destroyed once the study was complete.
Furthermore, I informed them that they would not be compensated for their participation.
Data were captured and reviewed in a private setting, and only I was present during
research-related activities. Moreover, I limited the collection of information about participants to
the amount necessary to achieve the aims of the research and did not approach participants in a
setting or location that may constitute an invasion of privacy or could potentially stigmatize
them. I stored data in local laptops and secure cloud-based services (Zoom, USC, Qualtrics) with
appropriate electronic safeguards and limited to authorized study personnel. Security software
(firewall, antivirus, anti-intrusion) was installed and regularly updated, and all computers with
access to study data were scanned regularly (for viruses and spyware, etc.), and problems were
resolved. In addition to privacy and safety concerns, the study’s ethical considerations include
the populations being benefited.
This study serves the interest of marginalized university students who, though they may
have physical access to the classroom, are not provided an appropriate learning experience or are
excluded from lesson plans. Additionally, it will benefit faculty, as it will potentially help
determine ways for them to build agency, self-efficacy, and empowerment in teaching these
students. Furthermore, the study will benefit institutions of higher education in general by
42

providing their faculty with personal accountability in implementing inclusive teaching
methodologies. Finally, it will serve university students in general, as increasing faculty agency
and self-efficacy can lead to more equitable outcomes for all, not just SWD.
Lastly, an essential part of the research process is disseminating its results. In this case, I
shared the findings initially with participants and contact persons at each university.
Additionally, results will be disseminated and published as part of a doctoral dissertation at the
USC Rossier School of Education. Findings could also be presented at academic conferences or
in print publications.

43

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors influencing Mexican higher education faculty’s delivery of inclusive teaching
methodologies for SWDs. Three research questions guided the study:
1. What are the attitudes of faculty regarding teaching SWDs and inclusive education?
2. What are the experiences of faculty regarding teaching SWDs and inclusive
education?
3. What organizational factors influence faculty delivery of inclusive teaching
methodologies for SWDs?
The present chapter will describe the study’s findings, which, using a qualitative
approach and through the lens of social cognitive theory and critical disability theory, reveal the
issues of attitudes, behavior, and organizational factors that influence faculty’s delivery of
inclusive teaching methodologies in Mexican HEIs. The chapter begins by providing a detailed
description of the study’s participants, followed by findings and discussions for each research
question. The chapter concludes with a summary of the collective findings.
Participants
This study had 12 participants, all current faculty at three public and three private
Mexican universities. A contact person at each university approached the participants, and of the
29 people contacted, 12 responded. Participating faculty originated from six HEIs in different
states in Mexico, representing distinct and diverse regions of the country; half worked in public
universities, and the other half in private universities. While these settings vary, class size is a
critical element that differentiates them. During the interviews, faculty from public universities
reported an average class size of over 30 students, some as large as 60, whereas participants from
44

private universities had an average class size of 17 students, with as few as five in some cases.
Additionally, most were full-time employees, and only two were part-time employees at their
HEIs. Finally, their background encompassed a wide variety of professional fields such as
design, exact sciences (chemistry), social sciences (law and education), administrative
(accounting and economics), and sports sciences. While organizational elements were key in
describing participants’ experience teaching SWD, some individual aspects also proved relevant.
Participants mentioned varying lengths of higher education teaching experience. For
example, some faculty had been teaching in HEIs for as little as 3 years, while others described
an academic career of up to 31 years. Per inclusion criteria, all of them report experiences
teaching at least one SWD during their careers, encompassing diverse types of disabilities such
as intellectual, visual, hearing, physical, and psychosocial (including autism, ADHD, anxiety,
and depression).
In addition, interviews revealed critical experiences participants had with disability, both
personal and professional. For example, while some participants live with a disability, others
have close family experiences, and yet others describe familiarity with individuals with
disabilities. Three participants described previous professional experiences with people with
disabilities through other work settings. Finally, four participants reported not having had
previous experiences or interactions with people with disabilities. This information proved
critical in understanding participants’ current attitudes and approaches to teaching SWDs. Table
2 summarizes this information.

Table 2
Participants ’ Experience Teaching SWD
Pseudonym
Personal
experience
with disability
University
Employment
type
Discipline
Years of
teaching
experience
Type of
disabilities
taught
Typical class
size
Alma None
Public
University 1
Full-time Economics 25 Visual 50–60
Aranza
Daughter with
autism
Public
University 1
Full-time Economics 22 Hearing 45–60
Barbara
Previous
employment
Public
University 2
Part-time Education 4
ADHD
Physical
23–27
Bruno
Previous
employment
Public
University 2
Full-time Sport sciences 12
Autism
Physical
25–45
Carlos None
Public
University 3
Full-time Chemistry 3 Hearing 20–25
Carolina None
Public
University 3
Full-time Chemistry 31
Hearing
Visual
25–40
Daria
Family
member with
autism
Private
University 1
Full-time Design 8 Physical 18–30
Delia
She has
ADHD.
Daughter with
ADHD
Private
University 1
Full-time Design 12
Autism
ADHD
Psychosocial
12
45

Pseudonym
Personal
experience
with disability
University
Employment
type
Discipline
Years of
teaching
experience
Type of
disabilities
taught
Typical class
size
Diana
Daughter with
autism
Private
University 1
Full-time Design 32
Autism
ADHD
Psychosocial
12
Eduardo
Previous
employment
Private
University 2
Part-time Accounting 3 Hearing 15
Esteban None
Private
University 2
Full-time Education 13
Intellectual
Autism
5-20
Francisco
He has a
physical
disability
Private
University 3
Full-time Law 25
Blind
ADHD
25-35

46
47

Findings for Research Question 1
The first research question sought to explore faculty attitudes regarding teaching SWDs
and inclusive education. Attitudes encompass dispositions to respond to a certain situation and
are shaped by beliefs, feelings, and motivations (Allport, 1935; Pickens, 2005). Four themes
emerged from the data analysis: the nature of faculty attitudes toward SWDs (either aligned with
the medical model or with the social model of disability); faculty willingness to implement
inclusive teaching methodologies and to participate in training opportunities; their perceived
self-efficacy in their ability to teach SWD; and faculty members’ agency regarding their teaching
practice.
Nature of Attitudes Toward Students With Disabilities
Data sources for this research question included surveys and in-depth interviews.
Findings reveal two types of attitudes toward disability and inclusive education: one rooted in
ableist perspectives (medical model), and another indicates a more inclusive view (social model).
While both data sources were critical in revealing information, data analysis shows important
differences.
Survey data show all participants had favorable opinions regarding the necessity and
importance of inclusion of SWDs in higher education. Some participants even declared their
enthusiasm for being a part of this change. For example, Eduardo wrote, “Totalmente de acuerdo
y contento de poder ser parte de este cambio que se pretende hacer” (I completely agree, and I
am happy to be part of this change that is intended to be made). Aranza framed her agreement
from an institutional perspective by stating, “Considero que [la inclusión de alumnos con
discapacidad en educación superior] es una necesidad imperante en la actualidad, lo cual requiere
un cambio en las estructuras institucionales y en la labor docente” (I believe there is a prevailing
48

need nowadays [for the inclusion of SWDs in higher education], which requires a change in
organizational structures and teaching practices). When asked their opinion on providing
accommodations, survey results show all participants believed it is important. In response to the
prompt “I believe providing accommodations for students with disabilities is important,” 10
participants selected highly agree, and two selected agree. Data indicate that participants were
willing to provide accommodations and recognize the urgency, both on an individual and
organizational level, to navigate the required changes in providing an inclusive education.
However, upon further probing during the interviews, findings revealed some participants
whose attitudes reflected ableist beliefs and some whose attitudes reflected views more aligned
with the social model of disability.
The Medical Model of Disability: “La Inclusión Está Muy Padre, Pero Hay Que Ser
Realistas” (Inclusion Is Great, but We Have to Be Realistic)
The medical model of disability consists of assumptions that view disability as an
individual characteristic located within a person’s body or mind. A biological understanding of
disability underpins the belief that individuals must adapt to current norms, favoring the
normalization of those considered to be different from a culturally accepted standard (Bogart et
al., 2022). Six participants, though they had initially described favorable opinions toward
disability in their survey responses, revealed ableist attitudes toward disability during their
interviews. These beliefs closely aligned with the medical model and were revealed through
expressions of concern and doubt regarding the possibility of a truly inclusive education.
Participants’ definitions of disability overemphasized personal capacity as a determinant factor
in the success of inclusive education.
49

One of the manifestations of participants’ medical model beliefs was their tendency to
define disability from a deficiency perspective. For example, Aranza stated, “Una persona que se
considera con alguna discapacidad es porque tiene alguna limitación o alguna necesidad
específica que, en general no se comparte con la mayoría” (A person who is considered to have a
disability has a limitation or a specific need that is not shared with most people). Additionally,
Delia, when asked to define disability, said, “Es algo que te impide desarrollar una actividad al
100%. Pero hay grados también de discapacidad, puede ser física o mental, y dependiendo de
ésa, pues las posibilidades de la persona de aprendizaje o de movilidad van a variar” (It is
something that prevents you from fully performing a task. But there are degrees of disability, it
can be physical or mental, and depending on the type, a person’s abilities to learn or to move will
vary). Defining disability in terms of ability or capacity predetermines the possibility of a SWD
to actively participate in higher education and locating a disability exclusively within the
individual limits society’s accountability to provide supports.
In addition to these deficit views on disability, some participants expressed concern about
SWDs having the cognitive abilities to navigate higher education. For example, Bruno stated,
Que esté implicado a nivel cognitivo y que su coeficiente intelectual sea 60, 70, 80 todavía,
pero un 70, 60 está muy complicado. Porque lo estás pasando, estás creando un castillo de
cristal donde la persona no va a tener las habilidades académicas cognitivas para un nivel
de licenciatura. Es ahí donde yo digo, ‘sí, la inclusión está muy padre, pero también hay
que ser realistas’.
(If their cognitive ability is compromised and their intellectual quotient is 60, 70, with 80,
it could be possible, but 60, 70, it’s very complicated. Because you’re letting him pass,
you’re building crystal castles where the person won’t have the cognitive academic ability
50

to complete an undergraduate degree. That’s where I say, “OK, inclusion is great, but we
have to be realistic.”)
In keeping with Ernesto’s view, Daria said, “Estoy a favor, insisto, siempre y cuando
intelectualmente no sea el obstáculo. Pues porque se entendería que hay ciertas cuestiones o
ciertas condiciones en las que no se va a poder responder igual que el resto ante la exigencia
universitaria” (I’m all for it, again, as long as intellectually there is no barrier. Because then it
would be clear there would be certain issues or conditions where they could not respond like
other students to the academic rigor). These views condition the possibility of inclusive
education to a certain cognitive capacity, negating the possibility of students with intellectual
disabilities to participate in higher education.
Furthermore, Aranza, while acknowledging her role in providing supports for SWD,
questioned the possibility of the success of inclusive education by expressing a deterministic
view of a student’s potential: “Eso es lo que ahora yo me cuestiono, ok, están aquí los vamos a
atender, los vamos a ayudar, pero ¿realmente lo van a poder lograr?” (This is what I now
question, ok, they are here, we will support them, we will help them, but will they really
succeed?). These concerns are based on an individual perspective of disability, a view that limits
participation depending on a person’s mental or physical limitations. It follows that if
participants condition academic achievements to a student’s capacity, they will have legitimate
concerns regarding the individual supports they will require to attain success.
Additionally, an individual view of disability is consistent with the perspective that
students’ capacities should dictate what discipline they study. Four participants stated concerns
regarding the idea that a student’s major should align with their intellectual or physical ability.
For example, Carlos asked, “¿Qué carreras, de acuerdo con tu discapacidad, qué carrera podrías
51

estudiar en la universidad?” (What majors, according to your disability, what majors could you
study at the university?”). Additionally, Bruno stated, “Tienes que hacerle un test de coeficiente
intelectual para saber cuál va a ser el proyecto de vida y cuál van a ser los alcances” (you have to
perform an IQ test to know what their life project will be and how much they will be able to
achieve). Aranza also commented on this concern from an institutional perspective, referring to
the curricular inflexibility in her university, where the economics major is one of the most
academically challenging programs in her school:
Pero como conozco el contexto general, pues yo visualizo una serie de problemáticas
adicionales, porque yo lo comentaba con mi jefe y le decía “ella va economía, o sea, yo
puedo centrarme en el objetivo del curso y hacer que tenga un progreso y un avance de
cómo llegó a cómo se va y tratar de abonarle al objetivo y flexibilizar el programa de la
materia. Pero, ¿qué va a pasar con las materias subsecuentes?”
(I am familiar with the general context, so I foresee a series of additional difficulties
because I was speaking with my boss, and I said, “She is studying economics, I mean, I can
focus on the course objective and facilitate progress from how she arrived to how she
leaves, I can be flexible with the syllabus, right? But what will happen with the rest of her
classes?”)
Participants’ concerns regarding a student’s capacity and its relation to their ability to
succeed correspond with a deficit view of disability. These attitudes reflect ableist beliefs closely
aligned with the medical model of disability. Despite their apparently favorable opinions on
SWDs’ presence in higher education, when asked, they openly questioned the possibility of their
academic success.
52

The Social Model of Disability: “Lo Que Es Discapacitante Es El Espacio” (What Is
Disabling Is the Context)
The social model of disability shifts the concept of disability from the individual to the
interaction between a person with limitations and environmental barriers (U.N. General
Assembly, 2007). Six participants expressed distinct attitudes toward disability that closely
reflect the social model, made evident by their view of the role of barriers as obstacles to
inclusion, the recognition of human diversity as something that benefits education and HEIs in
general, and their mentioning of human rights as a key element in the delivery of inclusive
education. Despite most participants having attitudes that attributed to an environmental
perspective of disability, a few participants had discourses that could arise from a combination of
both models.
Research posits that the medical model can occasionally coexist with the social model
(Bogart et al., 2022; Ware & Schuelka, 2019), and this is the case in two participants’ interview
responses. Carlos, for example, attributed the challenge of teaching SWDs to the severity or type
of disability but also acknowledged contextual and academic barriers that could further
complicate the issue. He first stated, “Depende enormemente del grado de discapacidad o del
tipo de discapacidad que tenga una persona para que pueda estudiar aquí” (The possibility of
studying here depends enormously on the severity and type of disability), and then followed
with,
Porque por ejemplo para que una persona, a lo mejor con una discapacidad visual estudiara
aquí en la facultad, pues tendríamos que nosotros facultad, como universidad, pues de
alguna manera darle las herramientas para que trabaje, o sea, poner las condiciones para
que esa persona aprenda primero que nada.
53

(Because, for example, in order for a person who has a visual impairment to study here at
this school, we would have to, as a university, give them the tools, I mean, provide the
conditions so that the person can learn, to begin with.)
Additionally, Delia and Daria also defined disability from a deficit perspective but then
commented on eliminating barriers and, in Delia’s case, her active determination to do so.
Findings portray ambiguity in the conceptualization of disability and, hence, in faculty members’
perceived role in the success of inclusive education.
Interview data portrays other participants as unequivocally defining disability as a
condition that is strongly determined by barriers. For example, Francisco said,
la discapacidad es una falla en la sociedad de entender a la gente que no es común, que no
es como todos … Entonces no me gustaría que la discapacidad fuera una definición mía
dada hacia las personas con discapacidad, sino más bien una falla en el entendimiento en el
entorno social de la gente para entender a las personas que no son como uno, que no son
comunes.
(Disability is an inability for society to understand people who are different, who are not
like everyone else… So, I wouldn’t like to impose a definition of disability. Rather, it’s an
inability for people in a social context to understand those who are different from them.)
He described disability from a contextual perspective, where limitations are not attributed to the
person but to a society whose barriers hinder equity and inclusion. Similarly, Diana stated,
Entonces solo creo que son, o sea, somos personas que percibimos el mundo de una
manera distinta y eso hace el mundo mucho más rico. Pero no creo que sea una
discapacidad, creo que hemos construido una realidad que funciona para unos. Lo que es
discapacitante es el espacio.
54

(So, I just think they’re, I mean, we are all people who perceive the world differently, and
that enriches the world. But I don’t see it as a disability. I think we have constructed a
reality that works for some people. What is disabling is the context.)
The environmental and contextual elements in these definitions, in addition to the recognition of
human diversity, speak to the clarity these participants have both in defining the concept of
disability and in their perceived role in attaining educational inclusion.
Because social model beliefs attribute the success of inclusive education to the
elimination of environmental barriers rather than overcoming individual or biological limitations,
participants who have a clear social model perspective give varied examples of their active
participation in implementing accommodations. In this sense, Esteban stated, “Me ha implicado
ciertamente algunas adecuaciones o adaptaciones y sobre todo un seguimiento y un
acompañamiento” (It has certainly involved making adjustments and adaptations on my part, and
above all accompaniment). Additionally, Barbara said, “Simplemente es adaptar nuestra
metodología, adaptar las actividades, los contenidos, la bibliografía, de acuerdo a lo que ellos
necesitan. Para mí, esa es la discapacidad, como docente, una adaptación curricular, una
adecuación curricular” (It’s simply adapting our methodology, adapting activities, contents,
bibliography, according to their needs. To me, as a teacher, disability is a curricular adaptation, a
curricular adjustment). Furthermore, Alma described SWDs in terms of her commitment to them,
by stating, “Lo primero es ‘son como todos los demás. Y sólo se requiere buscar la manera de
que ellos aprendan’. No, no me viene a la mente el ‘Ay, pobrecito’, no. Es ‘vamos a tratar de
integrarlos al grupo’, ¿no?” (To begin with, they are just like everyone else. And we have to find
a way for them to learn. No, I don’t think, “oh, I feel sorry for him,” no. It’s more like, “Let’s try
to integrate them to the group, right?”). Faculty who emphasized the relevance of eliminating
55

contextual barriers unequivocally attributed the success of inclusion to their own participation in
the implementation of accommodations. In addition to environmental factors, these faculty
mentioned the diversity of learners as a relevant issue related to inclusive education.
Interview data show that six participants recognized the diversity of all learners,
regardless of disability. Diana said, “Obviamente, si una persona es distinta, pues tienes que
hacer las cosas de manera distinta. Lo que nosotros nos hemos encontrado es que todos somos
distintos” (Obviously, if a person’s different, you have to do things differently. What we’ve
found is that we are all different). She also commented on diversity as a natural and welcome
aspect of their discipline as designers:
Tengo la enorme suerte que estamos en la escuela de diseño. Y un diseñador se prepara
para pensar distinto y ofrecer una solución, soluciones distintas. Entonces aquí nadie puede
hacer algo igual. Entonces es naturalmente diverso el ambiente… entonces piensan de
forma distinta y ofrecen soluciones distintas a problemáticas similares. Entonces nada, eso,
somos diversos.
(I am extremely lucky to work in the school of design. And a designer is trained to think
differently and offer different solutions. So, here, nobody can do similar things. So, the
environment is naturally diverse. … So, they think differently and offer different solutions
to similar problems. So, that’s it, we’re diverse.)
The recognition and celebration of diversity is a fundamental aspect of the social model of
disability, and it informs both Diana and Barbara’s statements. For example, Barbara, whose
professional background is in pedagogy and has experience working with indigenous
communities and schools in underserved neighborhoods, commented,
56

Pienso que todos los alumnos, de alguna manera requieren una inclusión. Es decir, cada
uno de nosotros tiene una necesidad, digámoslo, particular, o una condición particular.
Entonces, al hablar de inclusión, aplica para todos, no aplica para un grupo en específico.
(I believe all students require inclusion in some way. I mean, we all have particular needs,
particular conditions. So when referring to inclusion, it applies to everybody, not just a
specific group.)
Later, she stated,
¿Realmente qué es lo que buscamos con el término de inclusión? Para mí sería algo que
aplica para todos, que todos los alumnos tienen que tener la posibilidad de aprender…
todos tendrían que tener la oportunidad de aprender. Que ninguno de ellos debe renunciar a
su cultura, a sus ideas, a sus principios, a nada de lo que forma parte de ellos, sino que la
educación debe adaptarse y debe respetar esos contextos de donde ellos vienen.
(What is it we expect from inclusion? To me, it’s something that applies to everybody,
where all students have the possibility of learning… they should all have the opportunity to
learn. That none of them should have to renounce their culture, their ideas, their principles,
anything that is a part of them, rather education has to adapt and respect their contexts.)
Findings show participants with experience in diverse learning environments expressed attitudes
that reflect the relevance of learners’ diversity, regardless of disability, and the view that students
have the right to receive an inclusive education.
Central to the social model of disability is the concept of human rights, which three
participants explicitly mentioned. For example, Barbara commented,
Abogo mucho por esta parte de las leyes, la garantía de disfrutar de este derecho a la
educación que es universal. Y si nuestra misma Constitución nos dice que toda persona
57

tiene derecho a recibir educación, hasta en la educación superior ... no lo veo como un reto
intelectual, sino más bien como un reto político, un reto institucional.
(I advocate for laws, for the right to receive an education, which is a universal right. And if
our Constitution states that we are all entitled to receive an education, even higher
education… I don’t see this as an intellectual challenge but a political one, an institutional
challenge.)
Additionally, Francisco, who is himself a person with a physical disability, commented on the
complex nature of guaranteeing the right to an inclusive education:
Yo creo en la universalidad de los servicios más que en los servicios para gente con
discapacidad. Es decir, yo creo que los servicios deben ser universales, para ser accesados
por todos y todas e inclusive las personas con discapacidad… yo siempre he hecho mucho
énfasis en que los derechos humanos son para todos y todas y que la educación es para
todos y todas. Y es tan simple como esto, pero tan complicado de hacer, porque todos y
todas somos ... todos y todas.
(I believe in the universality of services more than in specific services for people with
disabilities. I mean, I think services should be universal, accessible to all, even to people
with disabilities. … I have always emphasized that human rights are for everyone and
education is for everyone. And it’s as simple and as complicated as that because everyone
is… everyone.)
Faculty members’ belief that education is a human right implicates them as active
participants in implementing inclusive teaching strategies for all their students. Despite only half
of the participants being fully informed and actively aware of their personal accountability in the
inclusion process, they all manifested a willingness to enhance SWDs’ educational experiences.
58

Willingness
A common denominator among all participants was their enthusiasm and willingness to
take part in improving educational opportunities for SWD. Regardless of the nature of their
attitudes toward disability and inclusive education, all are willing to some degree to provide
accommodations, implement inclusive teaching methodologies, and participate in training
opportunities.
Willingness to Implement Inclusive Education Strategies: “¿Quién Dijo Que No Se Puede?”
(Who Says It’s Not Possible?)
Most participants are willing to make adjustments to class objectives, content,
methodology, and evaluations. Survey data show that nine participants were willing to adjust
class objectives and content. When probed further on their responses, faculty who stated they
were “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to adjust class objectives or content commented that they
thought it was important to respect what the course curriculum stated. Barbara, for example,
stated, “Ellos tienen que desarrollar ciertas competencias o habilidades con esa asignatura.
Entonces pienso yo que yo no debo modificar ese logro que ellos deben de obtener, esa
competencia que ellos deben de obtener” (They have to develop certain competencies or skills as
a result of that class. So I think I shouldn’t modify that objective that they should attain, that
competency they need to attain). Carlos on the other hand, stated he did not see the need to
modify class objectives or content because he had a SWD who had good academic capacity and
had the support of a Mexican sign language interpreter: “No cambiamos mucho de nuestra
manera de enseñar porque está el intérprete siempre presente y está apoyando en las clases,
entonces, de cierta manera lo que el profesor habla en clase el intérprete lo traduce en lenguaje
de señas y pues de esa manera se hace muchísimo más fácil el aprendizaje del estudiante” (We
59

didn’t change much in our way of teaching because the interpreter is always present, so in a way
whatever the teacher says in class, the interpreter translates into sign language and that greatly
facilitates the student’s learning). Faculty’s unwillingness to adjust class objectives or content
can be attributed to their belief in their need to adhere to the curriculum or to the judgement that
adjustments were not necessary.
Survey results indicate that the other participants were willing to adapt all aspects of the
curriculum to cater to SWDs’ learning needs: objectives, content, methodologies, and evaluation.
During the in-depth interviews, participants further characterized their willingness as an
eagerness to enhance educational outcomes for all their students. For example, Carolina said,
Eso realmente sería que nosotros, los maestros, buscáramos las maneras de que lo que
diéramos en las clases, que nuestra información llegara de la misma manera a todos y no
digo que nada más atender a ese alumno [el alumno con discapacidad], sino cambiar
estrategias y no nada más la estrategia para él. Sino para el grupo en general para que
también el grupo estuviera a la par de la otra persona.
(We, as teachers, should find ways to teach so that our information is absorbed in the
same way by all students, and not just that student [the SWD], but to change strategies,
and not only for him. But for the whole group so that they were all at the same level.)
Her comments reflect participants’ general disposition to implement changes in their teaching
practice to improve learning conditions for all students. Most participants described their sense
of responsibility in driving positive change. For example, Alma commented, “Lo que yo pensaba
es bueno, él nada más no ve, pero no es que no pueda aprender, o sea, sólo no ve, entonces
tenemos que ver cómo hacerlo” (What I thought was well, he can’t see, but that doesn’t mean he
can’t learn, he just can’t see, so we have to figure out a way to do that).
60

Furthermore, participants were willing to adapt their teaching practice to serve diverse
learners. For example, Carolina stated,
No trabajaría de la misma manera con cualquier tipo de discapacidad porque tendría que
ver qué necesidad tiene específicamente la persona para yo buscar adaptarme o buscar
adecuar las características de la clase a esa persona. Pero en cuanto a disposición y en
cuanto a compromiso, que es esa parte, sí no cambian, no, no cambian. Y siempre he
pensado en eso, que como docentes nunca tenemos que ser un obstáculo, no podemos ser la
barrera, al contrario, tenemos que ser como que esa puerta abierta para que ellos puedan
seguir aprendiendo y ellos también tengan la oportunidad de formarse y de terminar una
carrera.
(I obviously wouldn’t work the same way with any type of disability because I’d have to
determine what specific needs the person has so I can adapt and adjust my class to their
characteristics. But in terms of willingness and commitment, that doesn’t change, that
doesn’t change. And I’ve always thought that as teachers, we can never be the obstacles;
we can’t be the barriers. On the contrary, we have to be an open door so they can keep
learning, and so they have the opportunity to finish their degree and have a profession.)
Faculty’s willingness to implement accommodations and modify their practice to adjust to their
students’ needs is rivaled only by their willingness to participate in training to become more
effective in delivering inclusive teaching practices.
Willingness to Participate in Training Opportunities: “Hemos Ido Aprendido a Hablar En
Dinosaurio” (We Have Learned to Speak Dinosaur)
As survey and interview data show, all participants were willing and committed to
continued learning to improve their knowledge about teaching SWDs. Survey results show that
61

all participating faculty were highly likely to attend training. Additionally, during the interviews,
all participants manifested openness and curiosity toward learning from different perspectives.
For example, Delia said,
Es un área de oportunidad para aprender, para enseñar y para para crecer, porque creo que
te enseñan muchísimo la gente que tiene una discapacidad te enseña mucho y te ayuda a
apreciar las situaciones de vida desde otro ángulo que te permite como ver un panorama
mucho más vasto y amplio de posibilidades, de áreas de oportunidad.
(It’s an opportunity to learn, to teach, and to grow because I think people with disabilities
teach us so much and help us appreciate situations in life from a different angle that allows
you to see a wider perspective of possibilities, of opportunities.)
In addition to some participants’ open disposition and eagerness to experience exposure to
diverse viewpoints, all participants explicitly mentioned their interest in attending training to
acquire information and teaching strategies.
Participants manifested that continued learning and training are indisputable aspects of the
teaching profession, regardless of whether they have SWDs in their classes. For example,
Barbara said,
A mí sí me da mucha satisfacción, pero también implica un reto, es un reto y es una
responsabilidad bien grande porque yo me debo estar formando constantemente como
docente. Yo debo seguir aprendiendo y actualizándome también hasta en cuestión de
tecnologías, de decir “¿Qué herramientas hay con las que yo les puedo facilitar a ellos
también su aprendizaje?” Y no solamente para una persona que tiene una discapacidad,
esto es para todos los estudiantes.
62

(It gives me a lot of satisfaction but also represents a challenge. It’s a challenge and a
really big responsibility because, as a teacher, I have to attend training constantly. I have to
keep learning and upskilling, even when it comes to technology, to say, “What
mechanisms are there that I can use to facilitate their learning?” And not just for SWD.
This is for all students).
Participants perceived continued training as their obligation, hence their increased willingness to
attend courses and keep learning. For example, Bruno said, “Entonces yo creo que ahí sí tenemos
que ser muy honestos tanto los docentes decir, ‘¿sabes que? no estoy preparado’, ‘pues prepárese
mijo, porque usted decidió ser docente’” (We have to be really honest and say, as teachers, “you
know what? I’m not prepared for this. … Well, you better get ready, because you signed up to be
a teacher!”). In addition to their willingness to attend formal training, some participants
mentioned that their interest had taken the form of exploring outside their institutions to attain
resources.
Some faculty were open to obtaining information about inclusive teaching methodologies
from varied sources such as journals, websites, and more experienced colleagues. Carolina for
example, said, “Yo estuve bajando de artículos de la Universidad de Valencia, de varias
universidades de España, y hasta guardé los artículos y los engargolé y ahí los tengo [señala
detrás de ella]” (I downloaded articles from the University of Valencia, and other Spanish
universities, and I saved them and printed them, I have them there [points behind her]). In
addition to their willingness to attend training and obtain information from various sources,
several participants demonstrated a positive attitude and an openness toward learning in general,
applicable to their experience teaching SWDs.
63

Some faculty manifested their willingness to learn from their teaching experience and
from their students. For example, Barbara said she believes learning from her students’ diversity
is important, and she is willing to be open and teach to their needs, rather than asking them to
adjust to her teaching methodology: “que ellos [los estudiantes] también vean que no es nada
más ‘quiero que tú te adaptes a lo que yo tengo para ofrecerte’, sino ‘tú compárteme qué tienes tú
para ofrecerme a mí que yo pueda seguir aprendiendo también como docente’” (they [students]
can see that it’s not just “I want you to adjust to what I have to offer you” but rather “I want you
to share with me what you have to offer so that I can keep learning as a teacher”). Participants
also spoke to the fact that they enjoyed the challenge that learning new skills poses, and they saw
it as part of their responsibility. Barbara stated,
Yo tengo que seguir actualizándome en esa parte. Entonces se vuelve un reto y una
responsabilidad que yo tengo como docente el estar preparada para ofrecerles a ellos algo
cuando les toque llegar conmigo … sí me ha tocado de repente que me llegue algún
estudiante y que yo diga, “pues yo en esto soy nueva, nunca me había tocado, pero mi
compromiso es informarme, aprender y ayudarle a resolver de la mejor manera”.
(I have to continue acquiring skills in this sense. So, it becomes a challenge and a
responsibility that I have as a teacher to be prepared and to have something to offer them
when they are in a class with me. … I’ve had the experience of working with students and
saying, “Well, I’m new at this. I’ve never done it before, but it’s my commitment to be
informed and figure it out in the best way possible.”)
Furthermore, Diana commented on her experience with a student on the autism spectrum, from
whom she has been very eager to learn how he communicates: “Él comunica sus emociones a
través de dinosaurios, él siempre trae un dinosaurio, siempre … entonces hemos ido aprendiendo
64

a hablar dinosaurio. O algo así.” (He communicates his emotions through dinosaurs, he always
has a dinosaur with him, always … So, we have learned how to speak dinosaur. Or something
like that”). This example evidences her openness and genuine curiosity toward learning from
SWD, the value she places on diversity, and her belief that every student has something
important to say. In addition to faculty members’ willingness to commit to continued learning, as
evidenced by their disposition to attend training, learn from their experience, and seek out
information to improve their practice, their self-efficacy beliefs also shape their attitudes toward
SWD.
Self-Efficacy
Participants displayed varying degrees of self-efficacy beliefs in their ability to teach
SWDs. Six stated clear confidence in their abilities. Francisco, for example, wrote in his survey,
“Mucha [confianza], yo soy una persona con discapacidad motriz, y me encanta enseñar a
estudiantes con discapacidad” (A lot [of confidence], I am a person with a disability and I love to
teach SWDs). Additionally, Diana wrote, “Mientras más estudio y más clases imparto para
estudiantes con discapacidad, menos miedo siento. Sé que no lo hago perfecto, pero vamos
aprendiendo poco a poco. Los estudiantes con discapacidad son nuestros maestros.” (The more I
learn and the more I teach SWDs the less afraid I feel. I know I don’t do it perfectly, but we are
learning bit by bit. SWDs are our teachers).
Some participants briefly described the process of acquiring confidence in teaching
SWDs in their survey responses, then expressed their initial concerns with more detail during the
in-depth interviews. Esteban, for example, wrote, “Al principio me costó un poco por falta de
experiencia, después de varios años de interactuar con jóvenes con discapacidad y de algunos
curso me siento seguro de interactuar con ellos, de ofrecerles una formación y experiencia
65

universitaria de calidad” (At first it was a little difficult due to a lack of experience, after several
years of interacting with SWDs and taking some courses I feel confident interacting with them,
and offering them an education and a quality university experience). He then described his
experience in more detail during the interview: “Eh, mira no te voy a mentir. La primera vez que
me tocó y que me pidieron este apoyo de personas con discapacidad en mi clase tenía un poco
mis reservas en el sentido en que pudiera haber una buena recepción del grupo y también que yo
no fue a ser imprudente” (Um, look, I’m not going to lie to you. The first time I had to do it and I
was asked to have SWDs in my class, I had reservations about whether the other students would
be accepting or that I would not say something reckless).
Barbara also wrote about her high confidence: “Tengo la confianza para trabajar con
alumnos con discapacidad, pero no con todas las discapacidades tengo experiencia, se me facilita
aprender y es algo que me gusta hacer, considero que tendría que capacitarme en aquellas que no
conozco mucho” (I have the confidence to work with SWD, but I don’t have experience with all
disabilities, it’s easy for me to learn and it’s something I enjoy doing, I think I would have to
attend training to work with those I’m not familiar with). During her interview, Barbara delved
deeper into her experience, describing how she deals with situations where she feels she has little
experience:
Sí, sí, sí, siento confianza en mí, siento confianza en mis capacidades, en mi trabajo.
Siempre soy sincera con ellos cuando hay algo que no sé de momento. También les digo,
“esto es nuevo para mí, pero dame la oportunidad esta semana voy a investigar qué
podemos hacer y para la próxima te traigo una respuesta”. Entonces sí, creo que está bien,
entonces busco apoyos, busco vincularme con personas que tienen la experiencia o que
tienen el conocimiento, y yo les digo, “Oye, tengo una situación así, ¿qué puedo hacer?”
66

“Ah, pues mira, esto” y empiezo a recibir hasta sugerencias o recomendaciones. Sí lo he
hecho, sí lo he hecho y creo que es válido buscar también apoyo cuando uno como docente
sientes que no posees, pues todas las herramientas. Pero de dudar de mis capacidades para
sacarlos adelante, no. Me siento tranquila en ese sentido.”
(Yes, yes, yes, I have confidence in myself. I am confident in my abilities, in my work. I’m
always honest with them when there’s something I don’t know right away. I also say to
them, “This is new for me, but give me a chance to look into it this week, and I’ll have an
answer for you next week.” So yes, I think that’s ok. So, I find support. I try to find people
who have the experience or the knowledge, and I say to them, “I have this situation; what
can I do? Ah, you can do this.” So, I start to get suggestions or recommendations. I’ve
done it, and I think it’s valid to look for support when, as a teacher, you feel you don’t
have all the tools. But I don’t doubt my abilities to help them, no. I feel good about it.)
This example evidenced her confidence in her pedagogical ability, even as she recognized that
she does not always have all the answers. Her openness to ask questions when facing uncertainty
speaks to Barbara’s willingness to keep improving her teaching practice. In sum, the six
participants who portrayed high self-efficacy beliefs in teaching SWDs recounted that their
confidence was attained after years of experience in addition to their willingness to make and
learn from mistakes.
Additionally, two participants stated that their ability depends on the type of disability.
Carlos, for example, wrote, “Es difícil, pero dependiendo de la discapacidad y los apoyos o
herramientas que tenga el estudiante puede irse convirtiendo en algo más sencillo” (It’s difficult,
but depending on their disability and the supports or tools the student has, it can become easier).
67

These participants stated they had not had sufficient experience teaching students with different
disabilities, so they felt their capacity depended on their previous experience.
Half of participants stated they feel their lack of confidence is due to a lack of procedural
knowledge to teach SWDs. For example, Daria said regarding her confidence level, “Del 1 al 10
… 6.5” (From 1 to 10… a 6.5). Carolina wrote, “Siento que me falta mucho por capacitarme, así
como realizar cambios profundos en mis metodologías, contenidos, prácticas de laboratorio, en
otras situaciones” (I feel I need a lot more training, as well as to make deep changes in my
methodology, contents, laboratory practices, in other situations). When probed further about her
perception, Aranza mentioned, “Considero que es algo que si puedo hacer, sin embargo, no tengo
la claridad de como lograrlo” (I think it’s something I can do, however, I don’t have clarity on
how to achieve it). Alma commented, “Yo aunque haya tomado todos los cursos, yo me siento
todavía que me hace falta saber más, saber cómo, cómo manejar esa situación, o sea, me sí me
siento incapaz a veces de llevar una situación en el grupo” (Even though I’ve taken all the
courses, I feel there is still so much I need to know, to know how to handle the situation, I mean,
yes I sometimes feel incapable of handling a group situation). These participants considered they
are capable of implementing inclusive teaching strategies. Though they do not doubt their
potential to do so, they do acknowledge their lack of training. Findings suggest that, though
participants manifested willingness to implement inclusive teaching strategies, most of them
lacked the confidence and knowledge to do so.
Agency
Agency refers to a person’s capacity to create and direct actions toward a specific goal
(Bandura, 2001). Out of the 12 participants, 11 show evidence of personal agency in their
experience with SWDs. Despite some participants’ perceived lack of procedural knowledge or
68

confidence to implement inclusive teaching strategies, participants manifested a clear
determination to do anything in their power to help SWDs succeed. For example, Eduardo,
recounting the experience of being offered a class where he would have a couple of deaf
students, said, “Para mí era un reto el tema de apoyar y ayudar en ese sentido. Y entonces dije,
sí” (To me, helping and supporting them was a challenge. So, I said yes).
Additionally, there are several examples of participants going out of their way to make
organizational changes to help their universities become more inclusive. For example, Barbara
said, “Hicimos la petición de que nos ofertaran un curso de lengua de señas por parte de la
Universidad porque creemos que ya ahorita es bien importante y no nos han ofertado ninguno
sobre lengua de señas, entonces sí lo solicitamos.” (We asked the university for a course on sign
language because we believe it’s very important and they haven’t offered us one, so we asked for
it). Furthermore, Aranza recounted her efforts in impacting organizational regulations in her
university: “Yo ahora estoy tratando como de proponer un protocolo porque … éstas son las
primeras experiencias que estamos viviendo en donde ya hay un área de inclusión, en donde ya
se les está identificando y se nos está informando de su situación a los profesores y ya nosotros
como profesores estamos, los que están interesados, pues estamos intentando ver la manera de
flexibilizar y de cómo atenderlos.” (I am now trying to propose regulations because… these are
the first experiences we have where there is an inclusion office, where they are identifying these
students and giving faculty information regarding their situation and we as teachers are, those
who are interested, well we’re trying to come up with a way to be flexible and support them).
Alma described a similar experience: “Estoy siempre levantando la voz diciendo, ‘Oye, si nos
decimos que somos incluyentes, por qué no involucramos a los profesores, o sea, ¿por qué no
damos mayores facilidades?’” (I’m always raising my voice and saying, “Hey, if we call
69

ourselves inclusive why don’t we give them more accommodations?”). Faculty show both
interest and determination in making changes to nudge their universities toward more inclusive
cultures.
Additionally, some participants described experiences where they exerted additional
effort than was required of them to make accommodations for SWDs. Carolina mentioned she
had to insist on accepting a SWDs into her program after the admissions office declined their
entrance to the program: “Otra maestra y yo le dijimos, ‘nosotros la aceptamos. Déjanos a
nosotros.’” (Another teacher and myself said, “We’ll accept her. Let us do it”). Alma recounted
an instance where she took charge of teaching a blind student, even though he was not in her
class: “Pues era un estudiante ciego y no era mi estudiante, o sea, no estaba en mi salón. Sino que
ese profesor me lo mandó y yo me encargué de él.” (Well, he was a blind student and he wasn’t
my student, I mean he wasn’t in my class. That teacher sent him to me and I took care of him).
When probed further on the subject, she stated simply,
Somos profes. Tienen que aprender y tienen que aprender todos, ¿no? Entonces, bueno
es, no sé si sea algo de vocación, no sé si sea algo de pasión, no sé, no sé qué sea lo que
mueve a alguien a sí querer hacer algo adicional a lo que te toca hacer.
(We are teachers. They have to learn, and they all have to learn, right? So I don’t know if
it’s something about our calling, I don’t know if it’s passion, I don’t know, I don’t know
what it is that moves somebody to do something additional to what they’re supposed to.)
She then described how she and her teaching assistant looked for resources to help this student:
Y entre los dos empezamos a buscar lecturas. Empezamos a buscar cosas, no había casi
nada … Y había alguna cosita por ahí en Sudamérica de unas niñas ciegas. …Y que les
enseñaban con figuritas que ellas tocaban y cosas así, entonces fue como que pues a ver
70

qué se nos ocurre, ¿no? Entonces, ya en matemáticas lo nivelamos más o menos con los
conceptos básicos de la matemática.
(And between the both of us, we started to look for papers. We started to look for things,
there was hardly any information… and there were some things about some blind girls in
South America ... And they taught them with little figures they could feel and things like
that, so we thought let’s see what we come up with, right? So, in math, we helped him
achieve the basic concepts.)
This example is meaningful because she described an experience with a student who had not
been taught the basic mathematical concepts in high school. Her belief in his ability to learn led
her to take the initiative and, though he was not directly his student, took him under her wing to
teach him remedial mathematics.
Several participants look to more experienced colleagues and consult with them on what
to do when facing a teaching challenge. Alma stated, “Tengo una amiga que también dio clases
en la prepa [para alumnos sordos] y así es como como resolvemos. Pues tengo una amiga que ya
tuvo a ver cómo le hizo y a ver, y ¿tú qué hiciste? ¿Y tú qué hiciste? ¿Y tú? ¿Qué existe? Y tratar
de resolver de alguna manera” (I have a friend who taught at this high school [for deaf students]
and that’s how we solved it. So I have a friend who had the experience and I asked her ‘so what
did you do? What did you do? And you? What’s out there?’ You have to try to figure it out that
way). Barbara also described seeking resources outside her university: “Uno también tiene que
gestionar cómo ayudarles para que ellos puedan hacer esta parte de la práctica entonces casi
siempre los apoyos los he buscado por fuera, no con la misma universidad.” (You have to figure
out how to help them so they can do their [lab] practice so I have looked for outside help nearly
71

every time, not within the university). These examples evidence faculty’s agency to seek the best
resources for their students, even when they do not always know what to do.
Alma described a few examples of her resourcefulness in seeking out supports. For
example, when she realized her university would not provide technological support for a blind
student, she commented,
Busqué a un muy buen maestro, muy, muy bueno, era muy bueno, incluso. O sea, era
muy bueno, buscaba muchas estrategias de enseñanza y demás, y él estaba empezando su
maestría en, en ay, ya ni me acuerdo. Tecnologías del aprendizaje. Y le dije, “Oye, ¿por
qué no haces tu tesis trabajando con estudiantes con discapacidad?” “Ah, sí, me late”. Y
entonces él empezó a trabajar con su tesis e hizo una plataforma para estudiantes con baja
visión.
(I looked for a really good teacher, he was very, very good, he was, I mean, he was very
good, he would look for different teaching strategies, and he was starting his master’s in,
well, I can’t remember. Teaching technologies. And I said to him, “Hey, why don’t you
do your dissertation working with SWD?” “Ah, yes, good idea.” So he started to work on
his dissertation, and he made a platform for students with low vision.)
In addition to participants evidencing agency in their own practice, some also mentioned
transmitting agency to their students. Eduardo, for example, mentioned,
Los invitaba que se sintieran que podían lograr eso y lo que fuera. Porque en la vida
normal, en la calle, tú y yo sabemos que terminaste una carrera y luego sigue en la vida.
Pues la vida te va a golpear como a ti y a mí nos ha golpeado, ¿no? ¿Y hay que salir
adelante, ¿no? … Y entonces, ¿cómo lo vamos a enfrentar? O sea, “vamos a sacar el líder
72

que tienen ustedes” porque creo, estoy convencido de que la gente es líder en todo
momento, el tema es cómo lo despierta. Entonces eso me apasiona.
(I invited them to believe in their capacity, that they could achieve that and anything else.
Because in regular life, out there on the street, you and I know that once you finish your
degree, then comes real life. And life hits you hard, like it has you and me, right? And we
have to keep going, right? … So, how are we going to deal with it? I mean, “Let’s draw
out the leader within you” because I believe I am convinced that people are leaders at all
times. The issue is how you awaken it. So that’s my passion.)
He described his experience facing challenges by stating, “Yo siempre he creído que todo se
puede lograr” (I have always believed you can accomplish anything). This belief in his ability to
drive change makes him want to transmit that to his students. Additionally, Francisco
commented, “Debemos educar a todos, no buscar que los alumnos cambien, sino nosotros
tenemos que cambiar. Nosotros somos los que estamos brindando educación. Entonces yo creo
que el cambio debe empezar por nosotros.” (We have to educate them all, not try to get students
to change, but we have to change. We are the ones who are providing education. So I believe
change has to start with us). Faculty demonstrated agency in their teaching practice, rooted in
their belief that they are change agents with a responsibility to improve learning conditions for
SWDs.
Discussion Research Question 1
Four themes emerged in the data analysis regarding the first research question: the nature
of faculty attitudes toward SWDs, their willingness to implement inclusive teaching
methodologies and participate in training, their perceived self-efficacy in their ability to teach
SWD, and their agency to implement accommodations.
73

Previous studies have suggested that higher education faculty have ableist attitudes
toward disability (Castellanos Daza et al., 2018; Martins et al., 2018), corresponding to a deficit
or individual understanding of disability. The present study’s findings suggest half of the
participants’ understanding of disability originates from a biological perspective. This belief
limits their comprehension of inclusive education to adjustments that must be made individually
for every SWD and creates an inaccurate and complicated perception of inclusive education.
Furthermore, some participants condition the field of study to the students’ type of disability and
suggest their choices be limited accordingly (Cruz-Vadillo & Alvarado, 2017; Rodríguez-Martín
& Álvarez-Arregui, 2015). Contrastingly, while these faculty members use ableist notions and
terminology (Carballo et al., 2021; O’Donnell et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2018), they all agree on
the importance and necessity of the inclusion of SWDs in higher education.
Past research proposes the possibility that the medical and social models are not mutually
exclusive and can coexist in certain cultures (Bogart et al., 2022; Ware & Schuelka, 2019). In
congruence with the literature, the findings of this study show that some participants manifested
both medical and social model assertions (Polo Sánchez et al., 2018; Sniatecki et al., 2015;
Wang, 2020).
Contrastingly, half of the participants manifested an environmental understanding of
disability. Hence, their positive attitudes derive from an assumed personal responsibility to
eliminate contextual barriers that hinder the academic advancement of SWD. These participants
used inclusive language and referred to concepts such as diversity and human rights.
Some studies have suggested that higher education faculty are often unwilling and unable
to make pedagogical accommodations for SWDs (Castellanos Daza et al., 2018; Martins et al.,
2018; Rodríguez-Martín & Álvarez-Arregui, 2015; Sarrett, 2018). However, other research, such
74

as that of Abdella (2018), suggests that faculty do show a willingness to provide
accommodations. The present study, in accordance with the latter study, found that all
participants were willing to implement inclusive teaching strategies and to attend training to
improve their teaching practices, even those with ableist attitudes. However, despite participants’
willingness, they manifested a lack of procedural knowledge to apply inclusive teaching
methodologies. As in previous research, this study’s findings show that faculty lack the practical
understanding and pedagogical ability to teach SWDs (Langørgen et al., 2020; Martins et al.,
2018), and they have misinformation on inclusive teaching strategies (Cook et al., 2009; Gurbuz
et al., 2019; Moriña, 2019; Moriña et al., 2017).
Despite research by Rodríguez-Martín and Álvarez-Arregui (2015) suggesting faculty do
not believe in the necessity to adapt objectives, content, or assessment criteria, findings from the
present study suggest participants are, for the most part, willing to make curricular adaptations
for their SWD. Furthermore, findings revealed faculty were willing to participate in training to
improve their practice; they showed an interest in learning to improve their abilities and had the
tools to implement inclusive teaching strategies.
Additionally, faculty had varying degrees of self-efficacy in teaching SWD. Those with
the most professional experience teaching SWDs described their confidence as being the highest,
in accordance with the literature, which suggests that experience and previous contact with
SWDs improve self-efficacy beliefs (Li & Cheung, 2021; Subban et al., 2021). The literature
also suggests that confidence in one’s teaching skills can drive willingness to implement
accommodations (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002), results consistent with this study’s findings.
Finally, personal agency was a determinant factor for most participants. They
demonstrated the ability to make things happen and create organizational change even when,
75

apparently, it was beyond the scope of their position. Some participants demonstrated agency in
the classroom, while others strived to make change on an organizational level.
In summary, findings for the first research question reveal half of the participants had
ableist attitudes toward disability and inclusive education, while the other half had attitudes that
are inclusive. Further, findings suggest all participating faculty had a high willingness to
implement inclusive teaching methodologies and participate in training opportunities. While
participants had varying degrees of self-efficacy in their ability to teach SWD, those with less
confidence attributed it to their lack of training and procedural knowledge in doing so. Finally,
most faculty demonstrated high levels of agency in taking the initiative to help SWDs succeed in
higher education, some even seeking to drive institutional change to create more inclusive
cultures in their HEI.
Findings Research Question 2
The second research question sought to explore the participants’ experiences regarding
teaching SWDs and inclusive education through survey items and in-depth interviews. Data
analysis revealed four themes in answering this question: participants’ previous contact with
disability, their practice implementing inclusive teaching methodologies for SWD, their
perceived consequences of teaching SWDs, and their perceptions of their colleagues’
experiences with disability.
Previous Contact With Disability
Data analysis revealed information regarding participants’ previous contact with
disability, which proved significant in answering this research question. While some participants
had personal experiences with disability, others had previous professional contact with
individuals with disability. Faculty acknowledged their lived experiences shaped their teaching
76

practice and gave them a valuable understanding of disability before encountering SWDs in their
classroom.
Personal Experience With Disability: “Si Mis Papás Hubieran Aceptado Lo Que Les Dijo El
Médico, Yo No Habría Llegado Ni Siquiera a La Secundaria” (If My Parents Had Accepted
What the Doctor Told Them, I Would Not Have Made It to Middle School)
Several faculty reported having a personal lived experience with disability. For example,
both Francisco and Delia have lived with a disability for most of their lives. He has had a
physical disability since age six, and she lives with ADHD and has a daughter with the same
condition. Aranza and Diana have daughters on the autism spectrum, and Daria has a cousin with
autism.
Participants who live with a disability described how coping with their diagnoses
influenced their teaching experience with SWDs. For example, Francisco, who acquired his
disability at age six due to a head injury, described how his parents’ support and confidence in
him facilitated his academic and personal success:
Mi accidente fue a los 6 años y si mis papás hubieran aceptado lo que les dijo el médico,
yo no habría llegado ni siquiera a la secundaria. Entonces como que pues hay que seguirle,
seguirle y ya, o sea ... No podemos pensar que las personas con discapacidad van a tener
que estar siempre con alguien que las esté cuidando. Hay gente que sí pero hay mucha,
mucha gente con discapacidades que podría vivir sola, independiente. Pero pues hay que
empezar a empujarlos desde pequeños.
(My accident happened when I was 6 years old, and if my parents had accepted what the
doctor told them, I wouldn’t have even made it to middle school. So, it’s like we have to
keep going, just keep going, you know? ... We can’t assume that people with disabilities
77

will always have to rely on someone to take care of them. There are some who do, but
there are many, many people with disabilities who could live alone, independently. But we
have to start pushing them from a young age.)
His personal experience informed his views on SWDs; far from seeing them as victims, he
believes they should be empowered and independent, which has consequently shaped his
approach toward teaching them.
Delia’s personal experience living with ADHD has also proved significant in her teaching
practice, where she described sympathizing with students who live with the same condition:
Yo también tengo TDA. Pero curiosamente a mí nunca me diagnosticaron TDA porque en
mi época no se acostumbraba a llevarte el psicólogo… Pero a mí nadie me dijo que tenía
TDA, pero ahora entiendo mucho a mis alumnos porque entiendo esta parte de ... yo me
distraía absolutamente con todo y si pasaba una mosca era más entretenido ver la mosca
que estar escuchando al profesor. Escribir apuntes, bueno, a mí nunca me gustó, ¿no? Yo lo
entiendo y digo, Ah… entonces, pues también es como, empiezas a buscar también cosas
que te generan una estructura y que a lo mejor yo por necesidad lo tuve que hacer, ¿no?
(I also have ADHD. But interestingly, I was never diagnosed with ADHD because, during
my time, it wasn’t common to see a psychologist ... Nobody ever told me that I had
ADHD, but now I understand my students a lot because I understand. … I would get easily
distracted by everything, and if a fly flew by, it was more entertaining to watch the fly than
to listen to the teacher. Taking notes, well, it wasn’t my thing, you know? I understand it
now, and I think, Ah ... so it’s also like, you start seeking things that provide structure, and
maybe I had to do it out of necessity, you know?)
78

Her experience of having to seek out resources on her own due to a lack of medical attention
made her more empathetic toward her SWDs and provided her the ability to give them the
structure they need, which she never had.
Participants with close family members living with a disability report varied experiences
dealing with their situation. For example, Aranza commented on her daughter’s recent diagnosis
of autism, which she is still coming to grips with:
Recientemente tengo la experiencia con una de mis hijas… resulta que tiene un trastorno
del espectro autista de nivel uno y tiene 17 años y yo no lo había detectado entonces, pues
ahora mi percepción es diferente. Estoy como cambiando todo el esquema de cómo yo
entendía y veía y abordaba incluso las situaciones.
(Recently, I had an experience with one of my daughters. … It turns out she has level one
autism spectrum disorder, and she is 17 years old, and I had not detected it before, so now
my perception is different. I’m in the process of changing my whole framework of how I
understood, saw, and even approached these situations.)
In her case, her recent understanding of disability shaped how she perceives her students, and she
acknowledged the possibility that her own students might live with invisible or undisclosed
disabilities:
Esta parte de la discapacidad anteriormente… pensábamos en las personas que tienen
alguna necesidad de movimiento y cosas por el estilo, ¿no? Y no pensábamos en toda esta
diversidad de cuestiones que se tienen que considerar… precisamente por eso mi
percepción está cambiando, porque antes yo atendía un estudiante con alguna discapacidad
y bueno, en la medida de lo posible, las que son visuales [visibles] las puedes considerar y
de alguna manera brindarle algún apoyo, pero las que no se ven son más complejas y
79

difíciles de entender y desde nuestra mentalidad cuadrada es como “no hay flexibilidad,
pues yo te puedo permitir que entregues después los trabajos, pero si no sabes esto y no
sabes esto y no sabes esto, simplemente no apruebas”, ¿no? Y ahora no, ahora no.
(In terms of disability, previously ... we used to think about people who had some mobility
needs and such, right? And we didn’t think about all this diversity of issues that need to be
considered ... That’s precisely why my perception is changing because before, I would
attend to a student with a disability and, as much as possible, you can consider and provide
some support for the visible disabilities, but the ones that are not visible are more complex
and difficult to understand. From our rigid mindset, it’s like, “There is no flexibility, so I
can allow you to submit your assignments later, but if you don’t know this and you don’t
know that, and you don’t know this, then you simply fail,” right? And now I don’t feel this
way, no, not anymore.)
The emotional weight of her ongoing grief process made her sensitive to and aware of her
students’ needs, providing her with the opportunity to consider her students’ diversity and
become more intentional in how she reaches out to them and gives them support.
While Diana also has a daughter on the autism spectrum, she described a very different
experience. She has had more time to come to terms with that diagnosis, and while she spoke
about her academically accomplished daughter, she acknowledged important obstacles in her
education and described how she had to leave the country for her uniqueness to be valued:
Mi hija tiene 33 años y es autista … Entonces, en buena medida es este problema de
estrellarte con la pared de “no, pues no pueden, no, pues no son inclusivos, no, pues no sé
qué” Mi hija tiene un doctorado en una universidad inglesa. Donde cuando les avisó de- ya
estaba en la universidad- y les avisó, “oye nada más quiero decirles que soy autista”, “Ah,
80

pues sí, mucho gusto, el 90% de los estudiantes de doctorado son autistas. Es una enorme
ventaja competitiva, ¿algo más?”. “Ah no, gracias”. Pues en Reino Unido no ha tenido
ningún problema y ahorita trabaja en otra universidad sin broncas. No, no es un tema allá.
Pero aquí, sí es todo un tema.
(My daughter is 33 years old and is autistic. … So, to a large extent, it’s a problem of
running into a wall of “no, they can’t, no, they’re not inclusive, no, whatever.” My
daughter has a doctorate from a British university. When she informed them [of] that, she
was already at the university, and she said, “Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I’m
autistic.” They responded, “Oh, well, nice to meet you. Ninety percent of our doctoral
students are autistic. It’s a huge competitive advantage. Anything else?” Oh no, thank you.
In the UK, she hasn’t had any issues and is currently working at another university without
any problem. It’s not an issue there. But here, it’s a whole different matter.)
Diana’s experience has made her more determined to speak out about neurodiversity and even
create a program at her school, albeit criticized by some of her colleagues, to promote the
inclusion and belonging of autistic and neurodivergent students.
Finally, Daria described her previous contact with disability was through her cousin, who
has autism. While she stated that this experience was meaningful in understanding SWD, in her
case, it had a negative impact as it predisposed her to information she later had the opportunity to
disprove:
Hubo un caso en mi familia, pues no directa pero en mi familia y justamente incluso me
dijeron “No pues es que tu prima tiene una esperanza de vida súper cortita porque los niños
con este nivel de autismo viven súper poquito y les fallan todos los órganos y no sé qué”.
Entonces fue como “Ah okay, eso pasa con la gente autista, ¿no?” Yo tengo amigos con
81

autismo y tengo alumnos autistas, que pasan de los veinte años y es como “Ah entonces sí
se podía”. La verdad es que amplía la perspectiva mucho estar en un ambiente universitario
al menos para mí en todos los aspectos. O sea hay una diversidad impresionante en todo,
en absolutamente todo.
(There was a case in my family, not directly related but within my family, and they
actually told me, “Well, your cousin has a very short life expectancy because children with
this level of autism have a very short lifespan. Their organs fail, and so on.” So, it was like,
“Ah, okay, that’s what happens with autistic people, right?” I have friends with autism and
autistic students who are over 20 years old, so it’s like, “Ah, so it is possible.” The truth is
that being in a university environment expands your perspective in many ways, at least for
me, in every aspect. I mean, there is an incredible diversity in everything, absolutely
everything.)
In her case, she had previous misinformation, which she disproved when she met students with
autism and realized they were individuals with different needs. Though participants’ close
personal experience with disability proved significant in shaping their teaching practice, their
professional experiences also informed their work.
Previous Professional Experience With Disability: “En Básica Sí Lo Hacemos Con Mayor
Frecuencia, Identificar Inmediatamente Qué Alumnos Tienen Alguna Necesidad” (in
Elementary Education We Do It More Frequently, Immediately Identifying Which Student
Have Any Specific Needs)
Two participants revealed their previous professional experience with disability and how
this has informed their teaching practice in higher education. Barbara and Ernesto both had
previous contact with individuals with disability. In their cases, these were children. They
82

described two different experiences that shaped their current teaching practice in higher
education.
Barbara has been teaching in higher education for 4 years but has previous experience
working in elementary schools, where faculty receive more training and support to approach
SWDs in the classroom. Her professional background gave her the tools she needed, which she
implemented with her university students:
Como ya traía experiencia trabajando en educación básica, en básica sí lo hacemos con
mayor frecuencia, identificar inmediatamente qué alumnos tienen alguna necesidad.
Entonces dije “bueno, en universidad ¿porque no? Si a lo mejor también tenemos
estudiantes con alguna característica y nosotros pasamos por alto este tipo de
situaciones”, ¿no?
(As I already had experience working in elementary education, in elementary education,
we do it more frequently, immediately identifying which students have any specific
needs. So, I thought, “Well, in university, why not? Maybe we also have students with
certain characteristics, and we might overlook these types of situations”, right?)
Barbara drew on her previous knowledge and training and described feeling confident enough
during her first day of university classes to inquire whether her students had any specific learning
needs. Her professional experience proved to be an asset when approached by her SWD, and she
translated her knowledge to a higher education setting.
Bruno also described his previous professional contact with disability. While his
experience also involved mostly children, he described treatment in a clinical environment,
specifically neurological rehabilitation:
83

Primero que todo tengo un programa donde trabajamos con una ludoteca, una sala
neurosensorial con gimnasia para el cerebro con juegos. Tenemos ahorita más de
cincuenta usuarios entre autismo grado uno dos tres, tipo tres dos, uno altamente
funcional, funcional o poco funcional, verbales preverbales o no verbales, personas con
parálisis cerebral atáxicas plástica o atetóxica o mixta. También tenemos personas
Síndrome de Down, mosaico y translocación. Otros niños con altas capacidades
intelectuales, alguno que otro usuario con enfermedades vásculo cerebrales. También
hemos trabajado con personas post-COVID con la secuela de memoria a corto y largo
plazo también ahí activamos mediante patrones cruzados… en el aspecto cognitivo yo
siempre les digo a los papás “tienes que hacerle un test de coeficiente intelectual para
saber cuál va a ser el proyecto de vida y cuál van a ser los alcances”.
(First of all, I have a program where we work with a playroom, a neurosensory room, and
brain gymnastics with games. Currently, we have over 50 users, including individuals
with autism level one, two, and three, non-specific types, highly functional, functional, or
minimally functional, verbal, preverbal, or non-verbal. We also have individuals with
ataxic, spastic, or mixed cerebral palsy. Additionally, we have individuals with Down
Syndrome, mosaic, and translocation. Other children with high intellectual abilities and a
few users with cerebrovascular diseases. We have also worked with individuals who are
post-COVID with short and long-term memory sequelae. In terms of cognitive aspects, I
always tell parents, “You should have an intelligence quotient test done to determine the
individual’s life goals and potential.”)
Because of the therapeutic nature of his work, Bruno’s professional background predisposed his
teaching practice toward the medical model. While his experience helped him develop
84

confidence and interest in SWDs, his approach did not shift from treating patients to teaching a
university course. Though participants’ previous personal and professional contact with
disability proved meaningful, their academic field and organization also revealed important
information about their experiences.
Teaching Practice
Data analysis revealed participants’ diverse experiences implementing inclusive teaching
strategies. According to research, there are two distinct approaches to addressing SWDs’ needs:
the individual perspective, which emphasizes personalized solutions to address specific learning
challenges, and the social perspective, which attributes individual limitations to barriers created
by an inadequate learning environment that fails to accommodate learner diversity (Rose et al.,
2006). The literature emphasizes the relevance of the two perspectives and underscores
employing both environmental, or proactive, and individual, or reactive, methods (Rose et al.,
2006). The present study presents evidence of faculty implementing both types of methods in
their teaching practice, though reactive strategies are far more prevalent than proactive ones.
Proactive Strategies: “¿Que Estamos Haciendo Los Profesores Para Que Nuestros
Estudiantes De Veras Aprendan?” (What Are We, as Teachers, Doing to Ensure That Our
Students Truly Learn?)
Proactive strategies involve planning for the diversity of all learners and designing
methods that can be flexible enough to accommodate any student regardless of disability. A
well-known framework that implements these strategies is Universal Design for Learning, the
principles of which aim for inclusive and universal approaches to learning (Capp, 2017; Rose et
al., 2006). Diana provided an example of such an approach by presuming the existence of
neurodiversity among her students and planning her lessons accordingly:
85

Por ejemplo, cosas que nos han ayudado un montón, ellos [alumnos con TDA] tienen una
memoria de trabajo mucho más corta, entonces, si tú les dices que va a haber un proyecto
durante todo el semestre al principio del semestre, los condenas a reprobar. Van a fracasar
porque no pueden recordar todo eso durante cuatro meses. Pero si divides en parcialidades
las entregas, a todo el mundo le queda muy claro como lo que tienen que ir haciendo. A
ellos les funciona muy bien, pero al resto también. Los autistas les gusta todo junto
entonces les dices, pues abre todo el documento de una vez. Entonces, unos van abriendo
de a poquitos porque les funciona y los chicos autistas lo tienen todo junto desde el
principio porque quieren saber qué va a pasar al principio, qué va a pasar en medio, qué va
a pasar al final, para poderse imaginar sus 300 futuros apocalípticos que es muy de ellos,
¿no? Los chicos ansioso depresivos, cuando caen en estados de depresión y no se pueden
levantar, no vienen a la universidad, punto.
(For example, things that have helped us a lot are that they [students with ADH] have a
much shorter working memory. So, if you tell them at the beginning of the semester that
there will be a project throughout the entire semester, you condemn them to fail. They will
struggle because they can’t remember all of that for 4 months. But if you break down the
assignments into smaller parts, everyone understands what they have to do. It works really
well for them, but also for others. Autistic students like everything together, so you tell
them to open the entire document at once. Then, some students gradually open it because it
works for them, while autistic students have everything together from the beginning
because they want to know what will happen at the start, in the middle, and at the end, so
they can imagine their 300 apocalyptic futures, which is very characteristic of them, right?
86

Students with anxiety and depression, when they fall into states of depression and can’t get
up, they simply don’t come to university, period.)
Diana’s ability to provide students the flexibility they need to succeed in their assignments is a
clear example of a proactive strategy. She views her own teaching methodologies as having the
potential to be a bridge or a barrier in her students’ learning experience.
When implementing proactive strategies, having an open disposition to detect undisclosed
needs is also key. Barbara’s practice of detecting support needs in her students during the first
day of class is an example of this: “Cuando recién llegué yo a la universidad con mi primer
grupo, apliqué una encuesta de diagnóstico y les preguntaba si había alguien que requería algún
tipo de apoyo.” (When I first arrived at the university with my first group, I conducted a
diagnostic survey and asked them if anyone needed any type of support). Her diagnosis serves to
proactively plan her lessons, taking into consideration possible learning differences. In addition,
Delia spoke about cultivating trust and observing her students’ learning differences:
Creo que es mucho el observar, es mucho este contacto con el alumno, el generar esta
apertura para escuchar, para dialogar, para romper esta barrera… Entonces cuando les
abres este abanico en donde puedes tener este acercamiento para poder preguntar
simplemente, por ejemplo, “¿cómo quisieras que te explicara esto o cómo te funciona a ti?”
(I believe it is crucial to observe and have close contact with the students to create an
environment of openness, listening, and dialogue in order to break down barriers. When
you provide them with this opportunity to ask questions like, “How would you like me to
explain this to you? How does it work for you?” It opens up a range of possibilities for
understanding and accommodating their individual needs.)
87

She understands students may have specific needs or preferences she needs to take into
consideration, and they may not always be evident but may require some probing. Delia further
commented on students’ emotional needs and that their academic success requires addressing
them:
A veces he dicho “Ok, la clase de hoy no va a ser de clase. La clase de hoy va a ser de otra
cosa.” Y entonces hablamos de “y qué sientes y por qué no hablas con tu mamá, y qué van
a hacer y …” Y sabes … orientación, porque muchos no tienen ese diálogo con en casa,
¿no? Entonces creo que también tenemos que ser un poquito más pues sí, observadores, a
veces no tienes que irte con el cajón de que a la fuerza tengo que ver todo esto porque a
veces es más importante la parte emocional para que lo que tú enseñes sea absorbido, que
cuando lo dejas por la paz. Entonces creo que sí hay formas de cambiarlo y de dejar de ser
tan tradicional muchas cosas y poder empezar a buscar estrategias en donde pueda haber
una sinergia entre todos. Sí, sí, creo que se puede hacer.
(Sometimes, I’ve said, “Okay, today’s class is not going to be a regular class. Today’s class
will be about something else.” And then we talk about how they feel and why they don’t
talk to their moms, and what they’re going to do ... It’s like counseling because many of
them don’t have that dialogue at home, right? So, I think we also need to be a bit more
observant. Sometimes, you don’t have to stick to the rigid structure of covering everything
because sometimes the emotional aspect is more important for the absorption of what you
teach than just leaving it aside. So, I believe there are ways to change and move away from
being so traditional in many aspects and to start looking for strategies where there can be
synergy among everyone. Yes, I do believe it’s possible.)
88

Proactive strategies refer to contextual barriers of any kind that could hinder successful learning.
By providing safe spaces for her students, she allows them to express any emotional need that
could be affecting their learning experience and eliminates potential obstacles that could
negatively affect them.
When designing evaluations, planning for diversity proved relevant for some participants.
For example, Diana stated,
Nosotros no hacemos exámenes porque no le vemos ningún sentido a que todo el mundo
conteste… ¿para qué quieres un diseñador contestando lo mismo que otro diseñador? Todo
es por proyectos y cada proyecto tiene que ser distinto y tiene que estar sustentado ¿Cómo
llegaste a donde llegaste? Entonces, el camino que tome cada quien, pues es independiente,
es individual. Creo que porque es una escuela diversa, la profesión, las personas que
estamos aquí.
We don’t conduct exams because we don’t see any sense in having everyone answer the
same questions. Why would you want one designer to answer the same as another
designer? Everything is project-based, and each project has to be different and
substantiated. How did you arrive at where you are now? Therefore, the path that each
person takes is independent and individual. I think it’s because our school embraces
diversity, both in terms of the profession and the people who are here.
One of the key elements of the proactive or environmental perspective is the value placed on
diversity in educational settings. By planning for differences in student evaluations, Diana is
providing enough flexibility to allow for the learner diversity that naturally occurs in the
classroom.
89

Some faculty, though not explicitly presenting evidence of inclusive or proactive practices,
have started to question if the strategies they implement are working for all students in general.
For example, Alma stated,
Digamos que estas experiencias me hicieron incluso cuestionar como profesora aún sin
tener estudiantes con discapacidad. No, o sea ¿Que estamos haciendo los profesores para
que nuestros estudiantes, de veras aprendan? Entonces pues luego ando buscando que
inventar para para ver si me funciona, si no me funciona y demás, ¿no?
(It seems that these experiences even made me question myself as a teacher, even without
having students with disabilities. I mean, what are we, as teachers, doing to ensure that our
students truly learn? So, I find myself constantly searching for new approaches and ideas to
see if they work or not. It’s an ongoing process of experimentation and learning from the
outcomes, isn’t it?)
Her experiences have led her to question what faculty can do to improve learning outcomes for
all students, not just those with disabilities. Though she did not mention it, her question holds the
weight of her suspicion that faculty could be doing more to cater to the needs of increasingly
diverse learners. While some participants implement universal design for learning or other
proactive teaching strategies to drive inclusion for all students, most focus on the specific
individual needs of SWD.
Reactive Strategies: “Bueno Y Con Los Ciegos, ¿qué Hago? Y Con Un Sordo ¿qué Hago?”
(Well, What Do I Do With Blind People? And What Do I Do With a Deaf Person?)
Reactive or individualized strategies are rooted in the expectation that SWDs are
responsible for disclosing their condition, and emphasis is placed on personal supports such as
sign language interpreters, computer software, or guide dogs. These strategies involve faculty
90

implementing accommodations centered around a specific SWD without taking into account
potentially different learning experiences within the group as a whole. Findings suggest some
faculty are mostly dependent on these types of strategies, and they often described experiences of
trial and error in implementing personal accommodations.
Some participants described dealing with reactiveness from an institutional perspective.
For example, Francisco’s depiction of his university’s experience regarding the inclusion of
SWDs is a telling example of a lack of proactiveness:
Yo creo que en mi universidad hemos sido reactivos, es decir… cuando llega gente con
discapacidad hemos hecho para que estudie, pero nos falta ser activos, es decir, no estamos
preparados para recibir a todos, sino que cuando llegan buscamos cómo hacer para que
puedan estudiar aquí. Entonces yo creo que nos falta pasar de la reactividad a ser una
universidad de verdad incluyente en donde estamos activos con todo lo que necesita una
persona con discapacidad.
(I believe that in my university, we have been reactive, meaning that we have made
accommodations for students with disabilities when they arrive, but we lack being
proactive. In other words, we are not prepared to welcome everyone; instead, we figure out
how to make it possible for them to study here once they arrive. I think we need to
transition from being reactive to becoming a truly inclusive university where we are
proactive in addressing all the needs of individuals with disabilities.)
Francisco is aware, as a person with a disability himself, of the importance of the universality of
access to education. His expression cements most of the experiences presented by participants
regarding their outlook on what inclusion is and should look like.
91

Reactive methodologies strongly depend on SWDs disclosing their condition so that
individual measures can be applied and personal accommodations can be made. While research
suggests this is in some cases necessary, it should not be the only resource to support students
and limits the possibility of impact to one person. Daria described a situation where she credits
the success of a student’s learning outcome to his ability to be proactive and take charge of his
own learning process:
Y entonces la realidad es que ha fluido incluso mejor que otras personas en sus clases en
sus calificaciones y todo. Eso sí es de los pocos que duda que se le atraviesa viene y se
para en mi oficina y hasta que resuelva todo lo que se le ocurrió, otros tantos prefieren
quedarse con la duda o mandar mensajito para preguntar o así y a él lo tengo aquí.
(And the reality is that he has even worked better than other people in his classes in terms
of his grades and everything. He is one of the few who, when he has a question, comes to
my office and stays until he resolves everything that came to his mind. Many others prefer
to remain with their doubts or send a quick message to ask, but he is right here, in person,
seeking clarification.)
This quote exemplifies the expectation that SWDs should disclose their condition and be active
in demanding support to increase their possibility of success.
Implementing reactive strategies involves adjusting methodologies in real time. Eduardo,
for example, described how he taught his class without previous thought for his SWDs and then
had to reconsider his strategies when he realized they were not understanding: “Y entonces sí
había un tema de cómo me veían, y yo decía, “Híjole, ¿estaré yendo bien, o sea, estaré yendo en
el camino correcto?” Hasta que tienes un tema de evaluación o de un trabajo o un examen,
entonces te empiezas a dar cuenta si va funcionando o no te va funcionando.” (And then there
92

was this issue of how they looked at me, and I would think, “Wow, am I doing well? Am I on the
right track?” But it wasn’t until I had an evaluation, a project, or an exam that I truly began to
realize whether things were working or not). In his case, he waited until an exam or evaluation to
find out if his students were learning, possibly impacting learning outcomes if he did not redirect
appropriately.
Various participants referenced this type of strategy, mentioning they had to implement
strategies through trial and error and correct course if they did not work as planned. For example,
Eduardo said, “Entonces, de repente, me seguían y de repente los perdía. Y de alguna manera,
eso dije, ‘chispas no, me estoy equivocando’ ... Sí, sí, me tuve que regresar porque de repente me
fui” (So, at times, they would follow along, but then I would suddenly lose them. And in a way, I
thought, “Oops, I must be doing something wrong.”…Yes, I had to go back because I had lost
them for a moment there”). Reactive strategies were common among participants, who described
often feeling lost due to inexperience in implementing inclusive teaching strategies or
accommodations.
Most participants described taking action to modify some curricular elements only after
they found out about the presence of SWDs in their class. On the implementation of individual
accommodations, Barbara commented,
Ella me decía que cuando hablara en la pantalla no hablara muy rápido porque ella leía mis
labios. Entonces, esa fue otra dinámica distinta, donde pues yo también tuve que regular en
mis clases hasta mi forma de hablar, el ritmo. Todo eso cambia ¿no? Y uno se tiene que ir
adecuando.
(She told me that when speaking in front of the screen, I should not speak too fast because
she was reading my lips. So, that was another different dynamic where I also had to adjust
93

my way of speaking, the pace, in my classes. Everything changes, right? And you have to
adjust.)
Additionally, Carolina gave an example of how she changed her way of speaking to adjust to her
deaf student:
Empecé a gesticular más, tomé clases de dicción, más que nada de expresión facial y ya me
quedé hablando así. O sea, antes yo hablaba muy así [inexpresiva] y ya ahora ya no puedo
dejar de hablar sin mover las manos, sin hacer expresiones. Mi tono de voz, mi dicción
cambió.
(I started gesturing more, took diction classes, mainly focusing on facial expressions, and I
ended up speaking like that. I mean, before, I used to speak like this [expressionless], and
now I can’t stop speaking without moving my hands, without making expressions. My tone
of voice and diction have changed.)
While individual adjustments are common and expected to be made for SWD, they should
ideally not be the only strategy implemented.
Some participants felt confused and inexperienced when facing the task of providing
accommodations. Alma commented on her experience, where her concern centers chiefly around
the possibility of having a single SWD:
Bueno y con los ciegos, ¿qué hago? Y con un sordo ¿qué hago? Ese es el asunto que no
sabes de inicio qué hacer y así eres medio curioso pues algo inventas. Y si no, pues ahí lo
dejas al final y le pones 60, “pobrecito”, ¿no? O sea, eso es lo que creo. ¿Que qué ocurre
con los profes? Que hay unos más, pues, más activos. O que se involucran más y hay otros
que prefieren dejar pasar esa oportunidad, ¿no?
94

(Well, what do I do with blind people? And what do I do with a deaf person? That’s the
thing. You don’t know what to do at first, so you become somewhat curious and come up
with something. And if not, well, you just leave them and give them a passing grade and
say, “Poor thing,” right? I mean, that’s what I think. What happens with the teachers?
There are some who are more, well, more proactive. They get more involved, while others
prefer to let that opportunity pass, right?)
While she described the situation as a learning opportunity, she also expressed frustration in not
having the necessary tools to help her students.
Though participants implement mostly reactive teaching strategies, some faculty express
the need for methodologies that will improve learning outcomes for all students, not just those
with disabilities. For example, Aranza mentioned the high incidence of failing students:
Y bueno, pues tenemos altos niveles de reprobación. Igual pasa con las de estadística, que
son las básicas, porque son materias que se comparten para todas las carreras del Centro
Universitario y bueno ya algunas otras que son más específicas y más avanzadas sí
disminuye un poco el número de, pues de estudiantes que se atienden por grupo.
(Well, we have high levels of failing grades. The same thing happens with statistics, which
are the foundational subjects because they are shared among all the majors at the School.
And well, for some other subjects that are more specific and advanced, the number of
students being attended to per group does decrease a bit.)
Her experience speaks to the fact that there is little flexibility or regard for the success of most
students.
The only participant who did not change his methodology when teaching SWDs was
Carlos, who stated that having an interpreter was enough of an accommodation. This individual
95

accommodation can be considered to be a reactive strategy, where both the university and the
interpreter are expected to be accountable for the students’ learning process. While
understanding that implementing inclusive teaching strategies proved critical in understanding
teaching practice, participants’ description of their perceived outcomes is also key in
understanding their lived experiences.
Perceived Consequences of Teaching SWD
Participants described positive experiences teaching SWD, manifesting a sense of pride in
their students’ achievements, even after several years. They refer fondly to their students,
remembering them by name and recalling details about their interactions. The perceived
consequences of their experiences teaching SWDs included improved teaching practice, an
enhanced learning environment for all students, a more inclusive culture, and increased
collaboration among colleagues.
Improved Teaching Practice: “Estas Experiencias Previas Que Tuve Me Hicieron Crecer, Me
Hicieron Reflexionar Sobre Muchas Cosas De Mi Propia Práctica Docente” (These Previous
Experiences I Had Made Me Grow and Made Me Reflect on Many Aspects of My Own
Teaching Practice)
Nine participants stated that having a SWD in their classroom decidedly improved their
teaching practice. Some described how getting to know their SWD closely increased their
awareness of every student’s needs. Barbara, for example, stated,
Uno como docente tiene como esta tarea de conocerlos, de conocer a las personas que tú
tienes en tu aula para que realmente puedas ofrecer dentro de esa diversidad todo lo que
ellos poseen, esa riqueza que ellos poseen que realmente brote ahí en el salón, en esa
experiencia que uno va armando.
96

(As a teacher, it is your job to get to know the individuals in your classroom so that you
can truly tap into the richness and diversity they bring. By understanding each student, you
can create an environment where their unique strengths and talents can flourish within the
classroom. It is through this process of getting to know them that you can create a
meaningful and engaging learning experience for all.)
In her survey response, she writes that one of the effects of teaching SWDs is “reconocer
la diversidad, aprender nuevas formas de interactuar y de enseñar, te exige capacitarte de acuerdo
a la discapacidad de forma específica, realizar adecuaciones curriculares, etc.” (Recognizing
diversity and learning new ways to interact and teach requires specific training to accommodate
different disabilities, making curriculum adjustments, and so on). Faculty who share these
emotive experiences tap into critical aspects of inclusive education, including creating safe
learning environments and the value of diversity.
The disposition to learn from their students was widely commented on among participants.
By keeping an open mind and embracing the unique opportunity to teach SWD, faculty
described how they have learned more from their students than vice versa. For example,
Francisco stated,
Yo creo que ellos me enseñan más a mí que yo a ellos. Es decir, te enseñan a ti formas, te
enseñan a ti maneras, te enseñan a ti empatía, te enseñan a ti ciertas cosas que uno no
pudiera tomar si no tuviera ese tipo de alumnos. Es decir, yo creo que el aprendizaje es
mutuo y yo creo que lo que ellos me dan a mí debe ser más de lo que yo le pueda dar a
ellos como aprendizaje. Es decir, el aprendizaje es mutuo.
(I believe that they teach me more than I teach them. They show you different ways. They
teach you empathy. They teach you certain things that you wouldn’t be able to grasp if you
97

didn’t have these types of students. I think the learning is mutual, and what they give me
must be more than what I can give them in terms of learning. In other words, learning is
mutual.)
Additionally, Carolina recalled, “Ella [la alumna] me decía, “Ay, aprendí mucho con usted” y
dije, “¡no sabes lo que yo aprendí de ti!” (She [the SWD] said, “Oh, I learned so much from
you,” and I said, “You have no idea how much I learned from you!”). Finally, Delia described
her conviction that an education model where it is presumed only students learn is out of date
and antiquated:
Todo mundo puede aportar algo y no nada más esta parte de que es el profesor el único que
educa. Creo que estamos, creo que eso ya no es, ¿no? Creo que ya también los alumnos
aportan muchísimo y bueno, no sé yo en lo particular, creo que aprendo mucho de ellos. De
lo que el alumno te dice de lo que el alumno hace, de comentarios que de repente hacen
que dices “Ay, eso no había pensado”.
(Everyone can contribute something, and it’s not just the role of the teacher to educate. I
believe that we have moved beyond that, right? I think students also contribute a lot, and,
well, personally, I think I learn a lot from them. From what the student tells you, from what
the student does, from comments they make that sometimes make you say, “Oh, I hadn’t
thought of that.”)
Participants described how keeping an open mind and cultivating a genuine interest in students
ultimately results in an improved experience for all.
Furthermore, participants described how they learned to implement accommodations for
SWD. Though they have stated a lack of training and some a lack of confidence, most faculty
98

described a fulfilling experience whereby they have come away with improved strategies for the
future. For example, Carolina stated,
En mi experiencia, la verdad, tengo que ser sincera. La primera que tuve fue muy
estresante… Fue estresante los primeros meses y luego ya después, como que me relajé un
poco. Pero cuando llegó otro chico te digo que no veía, tuve que cambiar estrategia… Tuve
que utilizar otras estrategias y sí, la verdad. Siempre estoy buscando cómo cambiarle a las
cosas, cómo hacerlo diferente.
(In my experience, to be honest, the first one I had was very stressful ... The first few
months were stressful, and then I relaxed a bit. But when another student came along who
was visually impaired, I had to change my approach ... I had to use different strategies.
Yes, honestly, I’m always looking for ways to change things, to do things differently.)
Her experience exemplifies the interest and creativity expressed by most participants, who enjoy
seeking out new teaching strategies and approaching a new challenge with an enthusiasm that
results in improved pedagogical skills.
Some faculty described how strategies they had to develop for SWDs have helped them be
better instructors for the rest of their students. Alma provided an example of how this apparently
forced creativity made her question her own teaching practice:
Y veíamos que lográbamos más cosas con él en cuanto a la aplicación de las herramientas
matemáticas que con los otros porque estábamos buscando maneras alternativas, pues de
explicarlo, no? ... Estas experiencias previas que tuve a mí me hicieron crecer, me hicieron
reflexionar sobre muchas cosas de mi propia práctica docente.
(And we noticed that we achieved more progress with him in terms of applying
mathematical tools than with the others because we were seeking alternative ways to
99

explain it, right? ... These previous experiences I had made me grow and made me reflect
on many aspects of my own teaching practice.)
The need to seek out diverse teaching methodologies has driven innovation and creativity,
ultimately benefiting all involved.
Furthermore, participants described the gratifying experience of having to constantly shift
and adjust methodologies. Delia, who has ADHD, described how her student’s need for structure
has helped her as well: “Pero con ella [la alumna], lo volví a comenzar a hacer porque vi esa
necesidad y me funcionó. ¿Sabes? Este creo que a mí en lo personal me ha ayudado a
estructurarme un poco más.” (But with her [the SWD], I started doing it again because I saw that
need, and it worked for me. You know? Personally, I think it has helped me become more
organized).
Enhanced Learning Environment for All Students: “Al Final De Cuentas El Grupo También
Se Vio Beneficiado Con Esta Metodología” (At the End of the Day, the Group Also Benefited
From This Methodology)
Data analysis revealed numerous situations where implementing strategies meant for a
SWD benefited all students. For example, Delia described how an accommodation she
implemented for one of her students with autism was useful for the whole group:
De hecho, ya hasta me piden, por ejemplo escribir, ya me piden “ay ¿lo vas a escribir?”
Entonces, bueno, pues sí lo escribo. Entonces ya lo escribo y luego alguien toma la foto y
la sube al chat de del grupo y entonces el que será trazado, o sea, ahí lo tiene en el chat,
¿no? Entonces, como que ha sido una dinámica que no me ha costado trabajo implementar.
(In fact, they even ask me now, for example, if I’m going to write something, they say,
“Oh, are you going to write it down?” So, well, I do write it down. Then someone takes a
100

picture and uploads it to the group chat, so the student who needs it has it right there in the
chat, you know? So, it has been a dynamic that hasn’t been difficult for me to implement.)
This strategy, originally meant for an autistic student in a design class, facilitated learning for the
rest of the group. Having the steps written down and visually available to everyone was a
strategy Delia claimed she would not have come up with if not for the SWD.
Barbara provided another example, describing her experience teaching a student with
ADHD, where she implemented a step-by-step methodology with clear guidelines and
instructions: “Entonces fue una experiencia muy enriquecedora y que al mismo tiempo le sirvió
al resto del grupo, o sea, al final de cuentas el grupo también se vio beneficiado con esta
metodología.” (So, it was a very enriching experience that also served the rest of the group. In
the end, the whole group benefited from this methodology). These accommodations, though
initially planned for SWD, facilitate learning for all.
Having a classmate with a disability has proven to be a learning experience for students.
For example, Esteban described how his group learned to organize their activities based on their
classmate’s needs. Because they are pedagogy students, the experience was enriching both in a
personal and professional way:
Lo que hacían era ponerla en primer lugar, darle la palabra y luego alguien del equipo la
apoyaba, “te toca lo siguiente”. Y entonces pasaba alguien más y le daban ese espacio y me
acuerdo mucho que tenía tarjetitas, de esas de media carta con sus notas y entonces la veía
repasando. Y la verdad yo no entendía mucho lo de las tarjetitas al principio y el equipo me
dijo, “Es que, Esteban, le dimos este guion y le dimos el orden en que va para que fuera
preparándose en lo que alguien más participaba”. Ah, muy bien, entonces fuimos
integrando bastante bien a la alumna.
101

(What they did was have her [SWD] go first, give her the floor, and then someone from the
team supported her by saying, “It’s your turn next.” Then, someone else would take over
and give her space. I remember she had small cards, like index cards, with her notes, and I
would see her reviewing them. At first, I didn’t understand the purpose of the cards, and
the team told me, “Esteban, we gave her this script and the order in which it goes so that
she could prepare while someone else participated.” Ah, I see. So we integrated the student
quite well.)
Esteban also wrote in his survey response that including SWDs “enriquece las interacciones en
las clases, es formativo, genera interacciones pertinentes y eficientes” (Interactions in the classes
are enriched through this process. It becomes a formative experience that generates relevant and
efficient interactions).
Being attentive and receptive to their classmates’ needs also creates learning opportunities
for students. For example, Carolina described how her non-disabled students became so
interested in sign language that they petitioned the university for courses:
También que los mismos alumnos pidieron esa materia como una materia de formación
integral dentro de la facultad y se abrieron dos grupos para los estudiantes para aprendizaje
de lengua de señas mexicana entonces pues bueno, eso ya apenas empezó este semestre,
ahora en enero. Yo digo que ha sido una ganancia para todos.
(It’s also worth mentioning that the students themselves requested this subject as an
integral part of their education within the faculty, and two groups were opened for students
to learn Mexican Sign Language. This initiative started just this semester, in January. I
believe it has been a gain for everyone involved.)
102

She described a situation that was beneficial to all, even outside the classroom; the sign language
course that was initially meant for her SWD’s classmates transcended, and more sections were
necessary to satisfy the interest they generated.
Finally, participants described how supporting their classmates’ needs facilitates the
emotional development of all students. For example, Diana described how her SWD felt a sense
of belonging, and students whose support needs are not as evident also benefit from the empathy
generated in the classroom:
Pues es que es mucho más rica la experiencia. Es mucho más gratificante. Porque generas
espacios, o sea, los chicos que no tienen bronca o su bronca es menor, se vuelven mucho
más empáticos. Y la alegría de estos chicos de sentirse por fin parte de algo, de ver que sí
pueden lograr lo que quieren, que hay otras maneras de hacerlo, te hace ser mucho más
creativo, de encontrar soluciones. Entonces no te aburres, no puedes dar la misma clase dos
veces. O sea, para mí son una bendición, es lo mejor que nos ha pasado en la vida.
(Well, the experience is much richer. It’s much more rewarding. Because you create
spaces, I mean, the kids who don’t have difficulties or have fewer difficulties become
much more empathetic. And the joy of these kids in finally feeling like part of something,
seeing that they can achieve what they want, that there are other ways to do it, makes you
more creative in finding solutions. So you never get bored, you can’t teach the same class
twice. To me, they are a blessing. It’s the best thing that’s ever happened to us.)
While the experience of having a SWD in the classroom improves teaching practices, drives
learning, and improves interactions, participants emphasize the effect SWDs have on creating
more inclusive cultures both inside and outside the classroom.
103

Inclusive Culture: “Se Ha Convertido En Una Escuela Cada Vez Más Respetuosa, Más
Empática” (It Has Become a School That Is Increasingly Respectful and Empathetic)
Findings suggest that the presence and participation of SWDs drive inclusion within
learning environments. Participants shared the positive impact of diversity, emphasizing the
effects empathy and collaboration have on their non-disabled students. For example, Diana stated
about her school, “Se ha convertido en una escuela cada vez más respetuosa, más empática” (It
has become a school that is increasingly respectful and empathetic). Additionally, Esteban
described how the group’s dynamic improved after only 1 month of contact with SWD:
Lo que he visto satisfactoriamente es que en las sesiones después del primer mes de clase
ya hay estos grupos que se organizan de manera más natural e integrados por estudiantes
de diferentes semestres, un poco más por la logística como están sentados y ya no tanto
porque “ay, yo contigo porque eres mi amiga, mi amigo”. Ya sí se sí se ve como esta
diversidad de los grupos y cuando ha habido personas que tienen alguna discapacidad
motriz, intelectual los integran ya muy natural, ya no tengo que ser yo quien llegue, “oigan,
y Juanito, Pedrito también, no?”. Ya es más más orgánica, la organización.
(What I have seen satisfactorily is that in the sessions after the first month of class, these
groups are naturally organized and integrated by students from different semesters, more
based on logistics like seating arrangements, rather than just because “oh, I’m with you
because you’re my friend.” Now, you can see the diversity within the groups, and when
there are people with physical or intellectual disabilities, they are integrated naturally. I no
longer have to be the one to say, “Hey, include Juanito and Pedrito too.” The organization
is more organic now.)
104

Participants were surprised to see how students they previously would not have thought of as
particularly empathetic changed into caring and considerate individuals. For example, Carolina
stated,
Para mí ha sido muy muy grato y en el sentido de que veo que los compañeros, los mismos
alumnos que yo hubiera pensado que, ahora los jóvenes son más indolentes, más
desinteresados, menos empáticos. Hemos visto todo lo contrario, o sea, los compañeros
han sido más, podríamos decir propositivos realmente, pero si se han enfocado más en
apoyar a los compañeros, yo siento que eso ha permeado y ha sido como algo benéfico
para todos.
(That has been very gratifying for me as well. In terms of my expectations, I might have
thought that young students would be more indifferent, less interested, and lacking
empathy. However, we have seen the opposite. The students have been proactive and
focused on supporting their classmates. I feel that this attitude has permeated throughout
the group and has been beneficial for everyone.)
Participants described how this experience has led their non-disabled students to be more
empathetic. For example, Delia described how her students have learned from the experience:
“Eso también es padre porque los alumnos también entienden a respetar, a validar, y a ver con el
otro qué puede hacer y qué no puede hacer” (That’s also great because the students learn to
respect, validate, and see what the other person can and cannot do).
Finally, the faculty noted that the learning experience transcended beyond the classroom
and has improved university culture in general. For example, Diana mentioned, “Lo mejor que
nos ha pasado ha sido la convivencia diaria con personas con discapacidad, porque nos ha
llevado a participar en la construcción de realidades más justo, aprendizajes plurales, creatividad
105

docente, responsabilidad y respeto. Una comunidad solidaria, abierta, comprometida y resiliente”
(That daily interaction with people with disabilities has been the best thing that has happened to
us. It has led us to participate in the construction of a more just reality, embrace diverse learning
experiences, foster teacher creativity, and promote responsibility and respect. It has created a
solid, open, committed, and resilient community). Esteban described the impact this experience
has had after many years of including SWDs and his perception of the shift in the culture at his
university:
Han mencionado que ellas [la PCD] les han aportado una sensibilidad a mirar diferente el
contexto, no solamente a las personas con discapacidad, sino el contexto, y que se vuelven
más sensibles. Que, por ejemplo, recuerdo que una de ellas me decía “es que antes yo pues
caminaba por el pasillo y la verdad es que ni siquiera observaba estas cosas o hasta hacía
como que no veía”… Entonces, lo que sí creo que se hace evidente es la sensibilización de
las estudiantes o el estudiantado que participan, interactúan con esas personas en el día a
día, más allá del aula.
(They have mentioned that people with disabilities have brought a sensitivity that allows
them to look at the context differently, not just at individuals with disabilities, but at the
context as a whole. They become more sensitive. For example, I remember one of them
saying, “Before, I would walk down the hallway, and honestly, I wouldn’t even notice
these things, or I would pretend not to see them.” … So, what is evident is the sensitization
of the students who participate and interact with these individuals on a daily basis beyond
the classroom.)
While participants described experiences of empathy and inclusion among students, findings
reveal that the relationships among faculty also benefited from SWDs’ presence.
106

Increased Collaboration Among Colleagues: “Es Como No Sé, Una Aldea Hippie En La Que
Nos Importa Mucho Los Demás” (It’s Like, I Don’t Know, a Hippie Village Where We Care a
Lot About Each Other)
Findings suggest a relevant effect of teaching SWDs is increased collaboration among
faculty. For example, Diana, Delia, and Daria mentioned that as a result of their teaching
experience with SWD, they actively collaborate in peer support groups, which have shaped their
experience in delivering accommodations for their students. Diana shared,
Entonces, es como no sé, una aldea hippie en la que nos importa mucho los demás.
Entonces muy emocionante y descubrimos cosas y las compartimos y tenemos un chat…
tenemos las reuniones de academia por áreas de conocimiento…y una vez cada 15 días
reservamos un espacio y en distintos horarios, entonces a veces es para desayunar o tomar
un café, o comer o un snack en la tarde o cenar aquí en la universidad… Entonces, en esas
reuniones, de acuerdo a las cosas que vamos viviendo, pues las vamos compartiendo y
estos chicos siempre están, como en el tema, porque pues son el reto más grande que
tenemos… Y cuando un profesor encuentra que algo funciona, nos los comparte.
(So, it’s like, I don’t know, a hippie village where we care a lot about each other. It’s really
exciting, and we discover things and share them, and we have a group chat ... we have
academic meetings by knowledge areas ... And once every 15 days, we reserve a space at
different times, so sometimes it’s for breakfast or having a coffee, or lunch or an afternoon
snack, or dinner here at the university… So, in these meetings, based on the things we
experience, we share them, and these students are always involved because they are our
biggest challenge ... And when a teacher finds something that works, they share it with us.)
107

These participants described frequent encounters among colleagues where sharing pedagogical
strategies has proven helpful in delivering accommodations for SWDs and helped create a shared
experience and goal among faculty.
Additionally, Barbara, Carolina, Aranza, and Alma shared that though they do not
participate in organized groups, informally speaking to colleagues has been helpful in finding
strategies and developing common objectives. For example, Alma commented,
Pero tengo una amiga … que me dice “Tengo una estudiante sorda. ¿Y qué voy a hacer?”
Y me dice a mí porque tuve alguna experiencia, pero le digo “pero el mío era ciego,
entonces yo no sé qué hacer con un sordo”, o sea le digo, tengo una amiga que también dio
clases en la prepa y así es como como resolvemos. Pues tengo una amiga que ya tuvo a ver
cómo le hizo y a ver, y ¿tú qué hiciste? ¿Y tú qué hiciste? ¿Y tú? ¿Qué existe? y tratar de
resolver de alguna manera.
(But I have a friend ... who tells me, “I have a deaf student. What am I going to do?” And
she asks me because I had some experience, but I tell her, “Well, mine was blind, so I
don’t know what to do with a deaf student.” I tell her I have a friend who also taught at the
local high school, and this is how we resolved it. Well, I have a friend who already had to
figure out how to handle it, and I want to see how she did it, and what did you do? And
what did you do? And you? What resources are available? And try to find a way to solve it
somehow.)
Creating safe spaces to share experiences has proven critical for faculty, where they have found
among colleagues the support they need to continue developing teaching strategies.
One participant, Esteban, spontaneously mentioned he would find participating in a peer
group helpful: “que haya un espacio para compartir experiencias de quienes ya hemos o han
108

vivido estas experiencias de la inclusión dentro de las aulas” (That there is a space to share
experiences among those who have already lived or experienced inclusion in the classrooms).
Sharing these lived experiences is highly valued among participants.
Perception of Their Colleagues’ Experiences With Disability
Findings suggest that participants’ perceptions of their colleagues’ experiences with
SWDs are, for the most part, negative. Participants commented that faculty tend to feel insecure
in teaching SWD, demand excessive guidance, or avoid their responsibility. For example, six
participants who previously or currently held leadership roles reported that teachers want a step-
by-step guide. For example, Francisco stated,
Ellos preguntan mucho qué hacer, qué no hacer, o sea, ellos piden mucho instrucciones de
aquí, de la dirección, del departamento… de “¿qué hago con esto, qué hago con esto?”…
“¿qué hago cuando un alumno llega así? ... Digo no es crítica, simplemente cada quien
tenemos nuestro rol de maestros a veces ya muy hecho. Y el que llegue un alumno que no
te oye, pues… “¿cómo le hago, cómo le hago?”. Pues digo “tú velo, tu lo tienes, tú tienes el
poder de enseñarle… no preguntes, porque el preguntar es como que la universidad tiene
su librito y cuando llega un alumno así has esto”. No se puede, no se puede así yo creo.
(They ask a lot about what to do, what not to do. I mean, they often request instructions
from the administration, the department … like, “What should I do with this? How should I
handle this?” I mean, it’s not criticism; it’s just that each of us has our own role as
teachers, and sometimes we are set in our ways. When a student who can’t hear comes
along, they ask, “What do I do? How do I handle this?” Well, I say, “You figure it out, you
have it within you, you have the power to teach them.” … Asking is assuming the
109

university has a manual, like “When a student like this comes, do this.” It doesn’t work that
way, I don’t think.)
Participants suggest their colleagues’ passivity reveals a lack of agency in their ability to teach
SWD.
Some participants commented on the lack of interest their colleagues have in teaching
SWD. Aranza, for example, shared,
Desde mi conocimiento y mi experiencia y creo que los que de alguna manera tienen algún
contacto cercano o alguna experiencia cercana familiar son los que se muestran más
sensibles al tema y ponen de alguna manera algún interés adicional.
(From my knowledge and experience, I believe that those who have some kind of close
contact or personal experience with disability are the ones who show more sensitivity
toward the issue and demonstrate an additional interest in it.)
Faculty perceptions revealed that colleagues who show the most interest in teaching SWDs are
those who have a personal experience; otherwise, they tend to avoid the responsibility. For
example, Alma commented, “O sea, lo que querían los profesores era deshacerse del problema y
que otro se encargue porque era muy complicado para un profesor con un grupo” (So, what the
teachers wanted was to get rid of the problem and let someone else take care of it because it was
too complicated for a teacher with a whole class). Her perception is that faculty tend to ignore
the challenge, as Carolina’s example suggests:
A veces yo he visto que los mismos maestros se quejan. Se quejan “Es que yo no quiero
que me den ese grupo, ya me dijeron mis compañeros que viene muchachito así a este
semestre y me va a tocar, yo no lo quiero”, “en que semestre, en qué grupo va a estar a mi
denme el otro grupo”.
110

(Sometimes, I have seen that teachers themselves complain. They say, “I don’t want to be
assigned that group. My colleagues told me that this young student with certain challenges
is coming this semester, and I don’t want to deal with it.” They say things like, “In which
semester, in which group will they be? Give me the other group.”)
Faculty reported their colleagues avoid and sometimes actively exclude students, as the
following example Alma shared reveals:
Yo le pregunté y “¿tienes es un estudiante ciega?”, “sí, pero se hace porque sí ve. Sí ve, me
dicen sus compañeros, que sí ve que se pone el celular aquí [en la nariz] y sí ve”. Y yo, así
como “pues sí, pero o sea, tiene baja visión y eso y no ver es casi lo mismo”, o sea. “No,
que no sé qué” la reprobó.
(I asked her, “Do you have a visually impaired student?” She replied, “Yes, but she’s
faking it because she can see. Her classmates tell me that she can see when she puts her
phone close to her nose.” And I responded, “Well, even if she has some vision, having low
vision is still a significant challenge.” But she said, “whatever,” and failed her.)
Several participants shared that their colleagues are afraid to change their teaching methods or
are fearful of doing things differently. Diana, for example, shared, “Yo creo que, no sé si es
ignorancia, miedo o ganas de no hacer las cosas distinto” (I believe it could be a combination of
ignorance, fear, or simply a reluctance to do things differently). Additionally, Delia commented,
“En el mismo diseño de repente sucede que hay algunos profesores que ‘¿Porque tengo que
e,hacerlo diferente?, que se adapten ellos’, pues es que no se puede adaptar” (Within our school,
sometimes there are teachers who ask, “Why should I do things differently? Let them [SWDs]
adapt.” But the thing is, it’s not possible for them to adapt). Their colleagues’ lack of
111

determination in implementing accommodations or inclusive teaching methodologies is
interpreted as disregard for their responsibilities as teachers.
Some participants mentioned a financial aspect, where they consider faculty are not paid
enough and already have too many obligations to take on any more responsibilities. For example,
Alma mentioned,
Y ese es otro problema en cuanto a cómo funciona la universidad, o sea, en realidad el
profesor sí tiene un salario bajo y te piden demasiadas cosas y podrían decir “y yo porque
estoy, no, no le voy a dedicar más de mi tiempo a alguien que no me están pagando, no me
pagan lo suficiente pues para hacer todo eso”. Yo creo que los profesores sienten miedo.
Sienten así miedo desconocimiento. Tanto de lo que es cómo aprende el otro. Sí, sí, les
preocupa, pero creo que es más bien miedo, más bien a lo desconocido.
(And that’s another problem with how the university system functions. The reality is that
professors often have low salaries and are expected to fulfill numerous responsibilities.
They might think, “Why should I dedicate more of my time to someone who isn’t paying
me adequately? I’m not paid enough to do all of that.” I think professors feel fear. They
feel fear of the unknown and lack of knowledge, both about how others learn and about the
situation itself. Yes, they are concerned, but it’s more about fear and the unknown.)
Faculty report that their colleagues’ fear of the unknown hinders their ability to be more
inclusive in their classrooms.
Some participants reported noticing some changes among faculty and revealed there is
more interest and positive attitudes. For example, Carolina commented,
Había maestros que no les interesaba tomar esos cursos, ahora con este alumno sordo, que
ya ha ido avanzando hasta séptimo semestre, hay maestros que me dicen, “Oye, ¿dónde has
112

tomado tus cursos de lengua de señas?” … yo siento que lo que se ha ganado es que ha
habido maestros que estaban renuentes, ahora sí les interesa tomar el curso.
(There were teachers who were not interested in taking those courses, but now, with this
deaf student who has progressed to the seventh semester, there are teachers who ask me,
“Hey, where did you take your sign language courses?” … I feel that what has been gained
is that there are teachers who were reluctant before but now show interest in taking the
course.)
Additionally, Daria shared that although older teachers tend to be more resistant, younger
teachers have embraced inclusion enthusiastically:
Fíjate que sobre todo con los que son más jóvenes es mucho más sencillo, o sea, es como
más cercano que entiendan o que incluso ellos digan “No pues sí, o sea yo también sufro
de ansiedad, o yo algo”. Pero los profes este más grandes, pues ya sabes, es como este,
pues, o sea es “caminando se le quita, pues que se calle y que me ponga atención, y cómo
se va a estar saliendo del salón a cada rato”. No sé o sea, es un poquito más difícil sin
embargo, la mayoría siempre acaban atendiendo a nuestras recomendaciones.
(It’s interesting that with younger teachers, it’s usually easier, as they can understand or
even say, “Well, I also experience anxiety or something similar.” But with older teachers,
you know how it is; they might think, “Just deal with it, stay quiet, and pay attention. Why
should they keep leaving the classroom?” It’s a bit more challenging, but the majority
eventually listen to our recommendations.)
Diana also shared mixed experiences among faculty:
Hemos encontrado profesores que también son grandes entusiastas de esto y suman un
montón y nos ayudan un montón y son parte como del club… y también conocemos
113

profesores con los que “no mejor no te metas ahí, luego no andes llorando porque no va a
salir padre”. Entonces, si hay, si hay quien no lo acepta y quien le molesta.
(We have encountered teachers who are also enthusiastic about this and contribute a lot,
providing us with great support. They are part of the club, so to speak. However, we also
know teachers who advise us to stay away from it, warning us that it won’t turn out well
and we’ll end up regretting it. So, yes, there are some who don’t accept it and are bothered
by it.)
The participants’ perceptions of their colleagues’ experiences teaching SWDs reveal there is still
a long way to go in achieving inclusive cultures within universities.
Discussion Research Question 2
The second research question had the aim of exploring participants’ experiences
regarding teaching SWDs and inclusive education. Four themes were revealed during data
analysis: participants’ previous contact with disability, their practices implementing inclusive
teaching methodologies for SWD, the perceived consequences of teaching SWD, and
participants’ perception of their colleagues’ experiences with disability.
Literature suggests previous contact with disability is a determining factor in faculty’s
self-efficacy beliefs regarding teaching SWDs (Li & Cheung, 2021; Subban et al., 2021).
Findings from the present study reveal personal and professional exposure to disability was an
important element in pedagogical experiences. Some participants’ personal connection to
disability proved critical in asserting their SWDs’ educational rights to an inclusive education,
driving innovative methodologies, or pursuing collaboration among colleagues. Participants with
professional contact with disability had varying experiences. In one case, it served to enrich their
current educational practice, and in another case, it resulted in cementing their medical approach
114

into their teaching pedagogy. Regardless of the type of experience and its outcome, participants
expressed that having previous contact with disability impacted their commitment to their
students and influenced how they pursued varied approaches to ensure their learning outcomes.
Though previous contact with disability proved to shape teaching approaches, their academic
field and setting were also revealing of their experience.
Research highlights the value of implementing both personalized and contextual
adaptations to better face the challenge of learner diversity in HEIs (Edwards et al., 2022; Rose
et al., 2006). Individualized strategies tend to be reactive, as they are implemented once the
student discloses their support needs or these are revealed during instruction; contextual
strategies seek a more proactive approach in that they are used to plan for diversity from the
inception of curricular design (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017). The present study revealed a
predominantly reactive approach to accommodations, consistent with an ingrained medical view
of disability (Bal et al., 2020). While faculty expressed their willingness to implement inclusive
strategies, most were restricted by their lack of ability to do it and limited to mainly reactive and
“trial and error” methodologies. Research indicates that intention does not predict actual
behavior (Emmers et al., 2020); in this case, participants expressed that their chief limitation was
their lack of procedural knowledge of this pedagogical skill. Additionally, most participants did
not even reference proactive strategies, suggesting only individual accommodations are in their
pedagogical toolkit. Though implementing educational strategies was a key factor in
participants’ experiences, their perceptions of the outcomes of teaching SWDs also proved
relevant.
Faculty reveal positive consequences as a result of the presence and participation of
SWDs in their classrooms, such as improved teaching skills, an enhanced learning environment
115

for all students, a more inclusive culture, and increased collaboration among colleagues.
Research suggests inclusive education is beneficial for all students, not just those with
disabilities (Ainscow & Miles, 2009; Collins et al., 2019; Madriaga et al., 2010); findings from
the present study are in accordance with the literature. Participants reveal that, while driving
learning and participation for their SWD, benefits were reported for other students and classroom
culture. Additionally, faculty mentioned that their innovation and creativity increased because of
searching for educational alternatives for students.
Finally, participants commented on their colleagues’ experiences with disability; findings
reveal predominantly negative attitudes, avoidance of responsibility, insecurity, and lack of
agency among their peers.
Findings Research Question 3
The present study’s third research question sought to reveal the organizational factors that
influence faculty delivery of inclusive teaching methodologies for SWDs. Four themes were
revealed in the analysis of surveys, interviews, and secondary data: the relevance of participants’
academic field and the nature of their university setting (public or private), available training,
HEIs’ policies and regulations, and current programs aimed explicitly at SWD.
Academic Field and Setting
Faculty members’ academic field and the nature of their HEI- whether public or private-
proved relevant in their implementation of inclusive teaching methodologies for SWD.
Participants revealed they believed their academic discipline to be a determining factor in their
approach to the implementation of inclusive teaching methodologies; for example, those who
came from an administrative field reported themselves to be more rigid and methodical and thus
less inclined to innovation, while those who taught at the school of design, for example, had the
116

opposite experience. Furthermore, the nature of their universities’ funding, whether public or
private, was also a critical aspect in determining resources that influence the inclusion of SWDs.
Academic Field: “La Mentalidad De Las Personas Que Trabajamos Con Los Métodos
Cuantitativos Creo Que Es Un Poco Más Cuadrada… Tenemos Poca Flexibilidad” (The
Mindset of People Who Work With Quantitative Methods, I Believe, Is a Bit More Rigid …
We Have Little Flexibility)
Participants’ academic fields proved to be an important factor in informing their teaching
practice, where some faculty described it as a positive influence, and others had the opposite
perception. Faculty who teach disciplines such as design generally tend to see the dynamic and
flexible nature of their field as a facilitator in developing inclusive practices and strategies. For
example, Delia commented,
Hay una ventaja, a lo mejor muy grande en cuestión de diseño, que tenemos una estructura
mental diferente. Y para nosotros hay que buscar la solución ante la necesidad. Si tiene
necesidad de no sé qué, hay que buscarle cómo hacerle, y entonces buscamos, aunque nos
salgamos de la regla, pero buscamos la forma de solucionar… pues todos los diseñadores,
pues así somos. A fin de cuentas, estamos buscando necesidades y buscando la manera de
cómo solucionar esa necesidad que se presenta en el usuario, quién sea.
(There is a potentially significant advantage in terms of design because we have a different
mental structure. For us, we seek solutions based on the needs we encounter. If there is a
need for something, we find a way to address it. We may deviate from the norm, but we
strive to find a solution ... Most designers are like that. Ultimately, we are looking for
needs and finding ways to solve those needs for the user, whoever they may be.)
117

Her experience was echoed by Diana, who acknowledged that designers have a significant
advantage in that they are flexible and original in their thinking:
Bueno, tengo la enorme suerte que estamos en la escuela de diseño. Y un diseñador se
prepara para pensar distinto y ofrecer una solución, soluciones distintas. Entonces aquí
nadie puede hacer algo igual. Entonces es naturalmente diverso el ambiente… piensan de
forma distinta y ofrecen soluciones distintas a problemáticas similares entonces nada, eso,
somos diversos.
(Well, I’m incredibly fortunate that we’re in the school of design. And a designer is trained
to think differently and offer unique solutions. So here, nobody can do the same thing. The
environment is naturally diverse. … They think differently and offer different solutions to
similar problems. So, that’s it. We are diverse.)
Both Delia and Diana described their academic field as an asset in driving an inclusive culture
because the nature of their discipline values and requires diversity. This experience is contrasted
by faculty who work in more restricted and inflexible academic settings.
In the school of economics and administrative sciences, Aranza described a very different
experience. She criticized her field and colleagues’ rigid mindset: “la mentalidad de las personas
que trabajamos con los métodos cuantitativos creo que es un poco más cuadrada… tenemos poca
flexibilidad” (The mindset of people who work with quantitative methods, I believe, is a bit more
rigid… we have little flexibility). Additionally, Carolina, who works in the school of chemistry,
described inflexible practices when working in the laboratories and the challenges this originates
when attempting to implement inclusive practices. Although academic disciplines were a
relevant factor in the analysis of the participants’ experience teaching SWD, the public or private
nature of their institutions also revealed critical information.
118

University Type: “Me Llegó El Correo Del Área De Inclusión De Rectoría General,
Informándome Que a La Estudiante Se Le Había Designado Un Intérprete De Señas” (I
Received an Email From the Rector’s Office of Inclusion, Informing Me That the Student
Had Been Assigned a Sign Language Interpreter)
Though the participants’ six universities can be contrasted in various ways, the key
difference among them was the nature of their funding, whether public or private. Factors such
as class size and available resources were critical in understanding participants’ experiences.
Findings showed class sizes in public and private universities varied considerably, which
participants reported shaped their teaching experience. Data revealed participants from public
universities had, on average, class sizes 44% larger than those in private universities. Aranza,
who works at a large public university, described having to teach several groups of over 45
students each during one semester. She is aware of how this situation can complicate teaching
SWD; referring to faculty who have many students and feel unable to provide accommodations,
she stated, “Otra profesora que tiene diez grupos con 50 estudiantes y atiende 500 estudiantes
dice, ‘yo no puedo atender al estudiante que me está interrumpiendo cada cinco minutos porque
tiene una necesidad específica’” (Another teacher who has ten groups with 50 students and
attends to 500 students says, “I can’t attend to the student who interrupts me every 5 minutes
because they have a specific need”). The amount of work required from these faculty members
hinders their ability to deliver personalized attention or instruction to any student.
Some participants described faculty being overwhelmed by the number of students and
showing little interest in learning outcomes in general, let alone for SWDs. Alma, who works at
a large public university, stated,
119

En los primeros semestres, pues tenemos 50 o 60 estudiantes. Entonces con un estudiante
ciego, no era posible atenderlo a él personalmente, ni integrarlo así como con actividad,
además que los profesores acá entre nos eran buenos, digamos, en el sentido de que
conocían los temas pero no eran los más preocupados en que los estudiantes aprendieran,
independientemente de que tuvieran una discapacidad o no. Ellos lo hacían y listo.
Dominaban el tema más no eran los más preocupados por el aprendizaje de los estudiantes.
(In the first semesters, we have around 50 or 60 students, so it wasn’t possible to attend to
a blind student personally or integrate them into activities. Additionally, the teachers,
between us, were good in the sense that they knew their subject matter, but they weren’t
the most concerned about whether the students learned or not, regardless of whether they
had a disability or not. They did their job, and that was it. They had mastery of the subject,
but they weren’t the most concerned about the students’ learning.)
The experience of having such numerous groups made teaching SWDs difficult, and participants
described the near impossibility of taking into account diverse learning needs in general,
regardless of disability. Further compounding the issue is the demand for faculty to teach a large
number of classes, leaving little to no time for office hours or individual feedback.
Faculty who work at private universities described different experiences regarding class
sizes, and some acknowledged this situation can drive creativity when implementing learning
activities or facilitate the detection of specific learning needs and the ability to help students.
Delia described her experience at a private university:
Los grupos son reducidos y por un lado es bueno porque tenemos la posibilidad de poder
dar un seguimiento un poco más puntual a cada uno de los alumnos, ¿no? Y detectar, sobre
todo, pues algunas cosas… se puede detectar cuando pues el que se distrae muchísimo, el
120

que no presta atención, el que te le pregunta 500 veces las mismas cosas, es decir, entonces
vas detectando qué está pasando.
(The groups are small, and on the one hand, it’s good because we have the possibility to
provide more personalized attention to each student, right? And especially to detect certain
things ... you can detect when someone gets very distracted when they don’t pay attention,
when they ask you the same thing 500 times, in other words, you start noticing what’s
happening.)
In addition, Esteban mentioned most of the inclusive learning activities he conducts would not be
possible if not for the small class sizes at his private university:
Busco que mi clase integre a todas y todos los estudiantes que participan durante el
semestre en la materia de forma orgánica. Digo yo como como buscar que sean
interacciones naturales, que haya dinámica de participación y de colaboración en los
proyectos, en los procesos y productos que hay durante la clase. Procuro que mis clases
tengan una parte práctica en donde haya pequeños productos en medida de lo posible, casi
cada clase y si no al menos semanal, en donde haya participación y colaboración en
pequeños grupos.
(I aim for my class to integrate all the students who participate throughout the semester in
an organic way. I mean, I seek to foster natural interactions with dynamics of participation
and collaboration in projects, processes, and class products. I strive for my classes to have
a practical component where there are small deliverables, ideally in almost every class or at
least on a weekly basis, encouraging participation and collaboration in small groups.)
Participants credit small class sizes with the possibility of detecting and attending to students’
diverse learning needs and facilitating the implementation of inclusive learning activities. While
121

class size is one of the factors that distinguishes both types of universities, the main distinction
between the two is the source of their funding.
While private universities must fund all resources through student tuition, public
universities can access federal and/or state funding. Participants described how access to these
resources has been used to make campuses more accessible and to pay for sign language
interpreters. For example, Alma described funding in her public university in this way:
En la institución sí hay, por ejemplo, programas para o se buscan fondos federales para
adecuaciones de infraestructura, que eso es en lo que más han estado apoyando. Y no tienen
que ver tanto tampoco con la compra de libros en braille o computadoras y demás, sino con
esto, con poner las líneas estas amarillas poner rampas con elevadores y cosas así…Yo sé
que han sido de fondos federales, o sea, hay un fondo participativo que va específicamente
dirigido a eso. Se concursa, se les dan y se ejerce.
(In the institution, there are indeed programs or efforts to seek federal funds for
infrastructure adaptations, which is where they have been providing the most support. It
doesn’t necessarily involve the purchase of Braille books, computers, or similar items, but
rather focuses on installing yellow lines, ramps with elevators, and things like that ... I
know that these initiatives have been funded by federal funds, meaning there is a
participatory fund specifically aimed at that. There is a competition, grants are awarded,
and then they are implemented.)
In her experience, public resources are utilized to improve infrastructure and buildings rather
than providing less visible elements such as software or accessible learning materials. Carolina
also described how her university has employed these public resources:
122

Hay una o dos camionetas especializadas para personas que andan en silla de ruedas, por
ejemplo. Y los llevan y los traen a su casa, a las clases, eso sí, ya tiene ahorita la
universidad, creo que son dos camionetas y tienen rutas para llevar a los estudiantes a las
clases … el chofer, pues ese sí pertenece al sindicato del administrativo de la universidad.
(There are one or two specialized vans for people who use wheelchairs, for example. They
transport them to and from their homes to classes. Right now, the university has them. I
think there are two vans, and they have routes to take the students to classes. … The driver,
well, he belongs to the administrative staff union of the university.)
Participants, in general, described their universities’ expenditure of federal or local resources on
evident and conspicuous infrastructure elements rather than curricular or training components.
The experience with hiring sign language interpreters reveals a key difference between
private and public funding. Where public universities have largely implemented the hiring of
these interpreters as part of their staff, for private universities, this practice depends on the
willingness of current leadership. Participants described the value of being provided a paid sign
language interpreter for their deaf students. Aranza, for example, stated, “Me llegó el correo del
área de inclusión de rectoría general, informándome que la estudiante se le había designado un
intérprete de señas” (I received an email from the rector’s office of inclusion, informing me that
the student had been assigned a sign language interpreter). She stated that the experience of
having the certainty of having this support was influential in her experience teaching a deaf
student.
In the case of private universities, however, they must provide their own funding for
these programs. Hence, if they do not have the resources or if there is a change in leadership,
123

support can quickly disappear. Eduardo described his experience with deaf students in the private
university where he works:
La universidad lo que hizo fue, nos puso un intérprete… Y sí la universidad pagaba, por
separado, la intérprete… ya no está el rector anterior y hubo un cambio, y creo que él traía
empujando mucho esto. El nuevo que llegó ya no sé si no lo quiso continuar, no sabría
decirte más por qué, qué pasó.
(What the university did was provide us with an interpreter ... And yes, the university paid
for the interpreter separately. The previous president is no longer in office, and there has
been a change. I think he was really pushing for this initiative. The new president who
came in might not have wanted to continue it. I’m not sure why or what happened exactly.)
Eduardo describes his concern that due to the change in leadership, all support for this program
will disappear, and deaf students will no longer be able to study at this university unless they
provide their own sign language interpreter.
Furthermore, three participants from private universities spoke about their institution’s
infrastructure. For example, Esteban mentioned that his university is completely accessible to
wheelchair users:
Solamente una azotea no es accesible con silla de ruedas. Una. Que todas las demás pueden
ser accesibles con silla de ruedas a través de elevadores y de rampas. Y la verdad es que sí
hay elevadores que permiten llegar a un edificio a otro. Hay rampas para evitar los
escalones, digamos, abruptos… en general la accesibilidad creo que es bastante buena en la
universidad, la accesibilidad física, a partir de rampas elevadores que sí conectan con todos
los edificios.
124

(Only one rooftop is not wheelchair accessible. Just one. All the others can be accessed
with a wheelchair through elevators and ramps. And the truth is that there are elevators that
allow you to reach one building from another. There are ramps to avoid steep steps ... in
general, I believe the physical accessibility at the university is quite good, with ramps and
elevators that connect all the buildings.)
Daria, however, mentioned that though her university has ramps, they were not built at an
adequate inclination for individuals in wheelchairs to maneuver independently. Finally,
Francisco said that his university is not fully accessible, but if needed, classes were taught on the
ground floor so students or faculty with limited mobility did not have to venture up the stairs.
Esteban also stated that his university had invested in some equipment for the library to
convert text into audio a number of years ago. However, he said it is not used and is largely
unknown to faculty: “En ese entonces la biblioteca estaba comprando algunos equipos para la
lectura de textos, para la transcripción de texto a audio, y estos lectores que pues amplifican la
imagen para débiles visuales” (At that time, the library was buying some equipment for text
reading, for transcribing text to audio, and these readers that amplify the image for visually
impaired individuals). He said a previous authority made this investment, but it was not
sufficiently communicated, and training was not widely available for faculty to learn how to use
it.
These examples suggest that public universities tend to use their resources in more visible
ways, such as buses, ramps, elevators, tactile floor tiles, and sign language interpreters, rather
than less conspicuous elements like computer software, inclusive curricular design, or faculty
training. However, these supports are more stable and permanent than those provided by private
125

universities, where the use of financial resources largely depends on leadership’s willingness to
allocate budget for specific causes.
Available Training
Findings suggest that faculty training is insufficient to guarantee the adequate
implementation of inclusive teaching methodologies for SWD. Two (Bruno and Esteban) out of
the 12 participants report being satisfied with the content and quantity of training their
universities have offered. However, further inquiry shows that all participants reported at least
one of three challenges regarding training: it is inadequate in its content, opportunities are
insufficient, and there is a lack of general participation.
Most participants reported that their universities offer courses that are not satisfactory in
their content, either because they are too superficial, they are not experiential enough, or they
offer irrelevant material. Various faculty report courses that are too theoretical versus the
practical and experiential training they believe is needed to acquire the pedagogical skills they
require. Aranza mentioned that while it is important to understand the nature of disability, it is
critical to develop skills and learn to implement tools to specifically assist their students: “Te dan
una clase, en términos de explicarte en qué consiste la discapacidad, pero no te dicen cuáles son
las estrategias y qué tendrías que hacer y cómo tú podrías atenderlo, ¿no?” (They give you a
lecture in terms of explaining what the disability consists of, but they don’t tell you what the
strategies are and what you should do and how you could address it, right?). Additionally, Delia
described,
Es que creo que los cursos tendrían que ser cursos, primero mucho más profundos, no
cursos de 20 horas porque creo que en 20 horas no logras entender ni logras implementar
cambios, porque pues es muy difícil. A mí me encantaría que llegara a haber cursos en
126

donde sean vivenciales, donde puedas experimentar lo que la otra persona siente, o cómo
se maneja, o tener expertos que te estén hablando del tema. Y no ha pasado hasta el
momento. O sea, a lo mejor hay una conferencia o un taller que viene alguien experto y te
habla dos horas, cuatro horas.
(I believe that the courses should be much deeper, not just 20-hour courses, because I don’t
think you can truly understand or implement changes in just 20 hours, as it is quite
challenging. I would love to see experiential courses where you can actually experience
what the other person feels or how they navigate through things or have experts who can
speak to you on the subject. So far, that hasn’t happened. Maybe there is a conference or a
workshop where an expert comes and speaks for two or four hours, but that’s about it.)
Additionally, Alma described,
Te dan mucha teoría, te ponen a leer, te dejan un trabajo, te dejan que hagas una
adecuación a tu programa entregas y ya se acaba. Y no hay ningún seguimiento y no hay
este a veces estas el cómo es lo que hace falta, el cómo le voy a hacer.
(They give you a lot of theory, make you read, give your homework, ask you to make an
adaptation to your curriculum, and then it’s over. There is no follow-up, and sometimes
that’s exactly what’s missing—the practical aspect of how to actually do it, how am I
going to make it happen.)
Due to the superficial nature of the courses offered by their HEI, some participants have taken
the initiative to look elsewhere for training, even paying for courses themselves. In addition to
course material being too theoretical and impractical, faculty report some training addresses
inconsequential topics.
127

Aranza described being offered courses she found irrelevant, such as sign language
courses:
Me decía “les vamos a dar un curso de lenguaje de señas”, le dije, “es que no me interesa
ni creo que sea de tanta utilidad”, porque al final a lo mejor es uno al que vamos a atender
uno o dos, no vamos a dar educación específica para ellos, más bien a mí lo que me
interesa es cómo aprenden, ¿cuál es la manera en la que ella puede recibir mejor la
información para yo poder hacer énfasis en ello? ¿Y cuál es su trayectoria? A mí me
interesaría saber cómo se ha evaluado y cuál ha sido su desempeño en las áreas de métodos
cuantitativos para yo poder saber qué puedo esperar de ella y de dónde estoy partiendo para
poder lograr un avance, ¿no?
(She was telling me, “We’re going to give you a sign language course,” and I said, “I’m
not interested, and I don’t think it’s very useful,” because in the end, maybe there will be
only one or two students we will be attending to. We won’t be providing specific education
for them. What interests me more is how they learn, what is the best way for them to
receive information so that I can emphasize that. And what is their background? I would
like to know how they have been assessed and what their performance has been in the
quantitative methods areas, so I can have an idea of what to expect from them and where
I’m starting from in order to achieve progress, you know?)
Though various participants expressed frustration at the superficial and irrelevant content of
available training, some complained about the need to differentiate spaces for training and to
share experiences.
128

Daria described instances where faculty used a course as an outlet to express concerns,
which she described as unproductive because the instructor shifted their attention to containing
these emotional outbursts instead of teaching the course:
Yo ya tomé el curso de “Conociendo a mi alumno en el trastorno del espectro autista”. Y
sí, o sea hay mucha información, pero siempre estos temas dan para que la gente tenga
muchas preguntas que a lo mejor no vienen mucho al caso, o sea, pero como son
cuestiones psicológicas, la gente mete muchas otras cuestiones a veces que no son
precisamente correspondientes, digamos al espectro autista. Y entonces la ponente o quien
está dando el curso como tal, pues tampoco es así como “no, cállense porque eso no viene
al caso”. O sea, de alguna manera da tiempo a eso entonces el tiempo designado al curso
acaba siendo medio anecdótico el asunto, ¿no? Y también ellos tienen mucha información
y tienen mucha experiencia de su lado y entonces comparten mucho de su experiencia a
partir de sus ejemplos, pero es raro que nos digan cómo aterrizar eso en el aula.
(I have already taken the course “Understanding my student with autism spectrum
disorder.” And yes, I mean, there is a lot of information, but these topics always lead
people to have many questions that may not be directly related. I mean, since they are
psychological issues, people often bring up other matters that are not necessarily relevant
to autism spectrum disorder. So, the speaker or the person giving the course doesn’t
respond like, “No, be quiet, that’s not relevant.” They somehow make time for that, so the
designated course time ends up being somewhat anecdotal, you know? They also have a lot
of information and experience on their side, so they share a lot of their experiences through
examples. But it’s rare that they tell us how to apply that in the classroom.)
Additionally, Barbara mentioned one of the courses she took:
129

Me parece que el que habla de educación inclusiva es muy general, muy muy general,
como a grandes rasgos y como que no termina de aterrizarse muy bien la idea de lo que
persigue el curso. Siento que queda un poco ... ¿Cuál sería la palabra? Inconcluso como
que no ... algo le falta, algo le falta al curso.
(It seems to me that the discussion on inclusive education is very general, very, very
general, like an overview, and you never quite understand the idea of what the course aims
to achieve. I feel that it remains a bit ... What would be the word? Incomplete, like it’s
missing something, something is lacking in the course.)
Finally, Esteban mentioned,
Si bien en estos cursos se nos dice que seamos sensibles, que veamos el entorno, que
veamos las características de los estudiantes, sí creo que son cosas finas que haría falta
hacer más explícitas dentro de estos cursos, que ya están diseñados y que tienen que ver
con la inclusión de algunas estrategias o herramientas para considerar diferentes estrategias
de enseñanza.
(Although in these courses, we are told to be sensitive, to observe the environment, to
consider the characteristics of students, I do believe that these finer details should be made
more explicit within the course materials. They are already designed to cover the inclusion
of certain strategies or tools for considering different teaching approaches.)
Faculty commented that there are not enough courses offered, or they are available at
inadequate or inconvenient times. For example, Esteban stated,
Son cursos que se ofrecen en ciertas horas y que creo que valdría la pena replicarlos en
diferentes horas y diferentes días para que pues, más profesores puedan acceder a ellos
porque hay algunos o muchos, muchos profesores de asignatura, que pues vienen y dan su
130

clase… quizás faltan con más frecuencia y con más variedad de horarios para poder llegar
a más personas.
(These courses are offered at specific hours, and I believe it would be worthwhile to
replicate them at different times and on different days so that more teachers can access
them. There are some or many adjunct professors who come and teach their classes… but
perhaps there is a need for more frequent and varied scheduling to reach a larger audience.)
Though some participants mentioned that their universities offer asynchronous courses, which is
helpful for their complicated schedules, they also valued the opportunity for occasional
synchronous interaction.
Finally, participants report a lack of participation in the courses because none of the
courses offered are mandatory. Bruno, for example, stated, “Que los tomen pues ahí ya es otra
situación, que a mí me toca también invitarlos no de manera punitiva, pero sí están estos cursos
si quieren participar ya cada docente sabrá” (When they take them, then it’s a different situation.
As for me, I also have to invite them, not punitively, but these courses are available if they want
to participate. Each teacher will know). Most faculty believe training on inclusive practices
should be mandatory or at least should be better communicated by their institutions so faculty are
aware of these opportunities. Though findings point to a dearth of relevant training opportunities
as a critical factor in the implementation of inclusive teaching practices, the lack of policies and
regulations regarding SWDs in HEIs is also relevant.
Policies and Regulations
Interviews, secondary data analysis, university websites, and publicly available
documents revealed mixed findings regarding current policies and regulations. Three of the six
universities represented in this study have no information regarding disability resources,
131

programs, or policies on their websites, a finding consistent with these same HEIs having no
policies or regulations specifically developed for SWD. Additionally, participants from these
three universities described either having no knowledge of policies or regulations or being
certain these do not exist.
Data obtained from the other three institutions show varied results in this regard. For
example, one institution’s website has outdated contact information regarding a program for
students with intellectual disabilities; however, it does not mention specific policies or
regulations. The other two HEIs, one public and one private, have relevant information on their
websites, consistent with the existence of either resources specifically designed for the inclusion
of SWDs or specific policies for these students. Table 3 summarizes these findings, including
participants’ responses when inquired specifically about their universities’ policies and
regulations regarding the inclusion of SWDs.

132

Table 3
Universities ’ Policies and Regulations
University Website Policies/regulations Participant report
Public
University 1
Three clicks leads to page
describing the unit of
inclusion of the school
of administrative
sciences, which provides
a link to register for
access to laboratories,
add/drop classes, and
scholarships.
Institutional policies
mention all students
have the right to non-
discrimination,
including those with
disabilities.
Existence of an
institutional policy
for inclusion.
Participants report
an Office for
Inclusion,
Institutional
Policy for
Inclusion. They
report regulations
for access for
SWDs.
Public
University 2
Website has an
accessibility badge, but
there is no information
on disability.
Institutional policy
states the
responsibility of
academic coordinator
to identify SWDs to
provide available
support.
Participants report
no knowledge of
policies or
regulations.
Public
University 3
Website has no
information on
disability.
Institutional policies
mention all students
have the right to non-
discrimination,
including those with
disabilities.
Participants report
no knowledge of
policies or
regulations.
Private
University 1
Website has no
information on
disability.
Institutional policies
mention all students
have the right to
personal dignity,
including those with
disabilities.
Participants report
there are no
institutional
policies or
regulations
regarding
disability.
Participants
provided a
document stating
recommendations
for SWDs created
collaboratively in
the school of
design.
Private
University 2
Website has an
accessibility badge, two
clicks leads to a page
with outdated contact
Institutional policies
mention all students
have the right to non-
discrimination,
Participants report
no knowledge of
policies or
regulations.
133

University Website Policies/regulations Participant report
information for the
intellectual disability
program.
including those with
disabilities.
Private
University 3
Two clicks leads to page
of the office of diversity
and inclusion, which
provides resources and
annual reports.
Institutional policies
mention all students
have the same rights,
including those with
disabilities.
Participant mentions
an office of
diversity and
inclusion.

Findings show that only one of the six HEIs has a specific policy for inclusion whose aim
is to guarantee inclusion and equity for all vulnerable populations, including SWD. However,
interview data suggest that even participants who reported the existence of this policy expressed
concern that it was present only “on paper” and did not translate into concrete actions to
guarantee both access and successful educational outcomes. For example, Aranza, who works at
Public University 1 (the only HEI in the study that has a specific policy for inclusion of SWDs),
stated,
Existe la política de inclusión. Pero a mí me parece que quedó media corta. Quedó cortita.
Porque sí nos declaramos incluyentes pero ... Lo que buscan es fortalecer la cultura de
inclusión a través de no sé, elaborar y difundir contenidos que sensibilicen y lo que tratan
de hacer, es más o menos, sensibilizar y demás. Promover adecuaciones a la normatividad,
impulsar la accesibilidad, o sea, hay una lista de estrategias. Pero que creo que al final la
implementación se queda corta.
(There is a policy of inclusion. But it seems to me that it falls a bit short. It falls a little
short. Because, yes, we declare ourselves inclusive, but … what they seek is to strengthen
the culture of inclusion through, I don’t know, developing and disseminating content that
134

raises awareness, and what they try to do is more or less, sensitize and so on. Promote
adjustments to regulations, promote accessibility. In other words, there is a list of
strategies. But I believe that in the end, the implementation falls short.)
Additionally, Barbara, from Public University 2, described how international and national
legislation is not implemented within HEI:
De repente siento que sí están dentro del discurso. Sí están dentro de los documentos,
aparecen los conceptos, aparece el tomar en cuenta esta temática que viene como desde el
orden federal o a nivel nacional o más allá de repente por organismos internacionales. Pero
ya al momento de aterrizar bien bien estos documentos en nuestra realidad educativa,
siento que nos falta mucho trabajo por hacer, mucho trabajo. Porque, como te decía hace
un momento, simplemente el semestre pasado que yo buscaba cómo gestionar el apoyo
para esta chica no hay un protocolo, no hay un lineamiento, no hay algo con lo que tú
como docente te puedas apoyar de decir “Es que este manual, o es que este lineamiento, o
es que esto me indica a mí que yo sí puedo hacer esto con este estudiante”… aunque el
enfoque dice que la universidad tiene un modelo flexible, un modelo inclusivo… al
momento de que ya aterrizas esto, dices, “pues no, no tan flexible y no, no tan inclusivo”,
porque si yo estoy buscando una vía para cómo apoyar a este estudiante, se me cierran, se
me van cerrando como que las puertas… Y cuando le preguntas a las personas como
autoridades, autoridades a corto, inmediatas -no, no hablo de rectores ni nada de eso- sino
nuestros coordinadores, a veces, ellos también desconocen este proceso.
(I feel that they are indeed part of the discourse. They appear in the documents, the
concepts are there, and they take into account this issue that comes from the federal level
or national level or even beyond, perhaps through international organizations. But when it
135

comes to effectively implementing these documents in our educational reality, I feel that
we have a lot of work to do, a lot of work. Because, as I mentioned earlier, just last
semester, when I was looking for how to manage support for this girl, there is no protocol,
no guideline, nothing that, as a teacher, you can rely on and say, “This manual, or this
guideline, or this tells me that I can do this with this student” … Even though the approach
states that the university has a flexible model, an inclusive model, … when you actually try
to implement it, you realize, “Well, it’s not that flexible, and it’s not that inclusive”
because if I’m looking for a way to support this student, it feels like the doors are closing
on me. … And when you ask the people in authority, immediate authorities - no, I’m not
talking about rectors or anything like that, but our coordinators, sometimes they are also
unaware of this process.)
She described an example of having to navigate her university’s system to assist a student who
needed specific accommodations and feeling frustrated at not receiving any concrete answers.
Critically, participants manifested concern for the need to go beyond providing access to
HEI. Aranza described her experience in this regard:
Porque el hecho de poder admitirlos, es un logro grande el que ahora se están admitiendo a
los estudiantes, pero creo que también ahí hace que como institución estemos más
comprometidos y de alguna manera pues los ayudemos en el camino. No sólo es dejarlos
que brinquen la barrera para el ingreso, sino cómo vamos a lograr que este estudiante que
ya está aquí, pueda cumplir la meta y el objetivo. Porque nos va a costar más que los otros
estudiantes ¿no? O sea, nos va a costar más trabajo en términos de atención y de muchas
cosas que habrá que invertirle adicionalmente a lo que hacemos con nosotros, ¿no? Y pues
en eso creo que todavía no estamos preparados dentro de nuestra institución.
136

(Because the fact that we can admit them is a great achievement, that now we are admitting
students, but I think that also means that as an institution, we are more committed, and in
some way, we help them along the way. It’s not just about letting them overcome the
barrier for admission, but how are we going to ensure that this student who is already here
can achieve their goal and objective? Because it will cost us more than other students,
right? I mean, it will require more effort in terms of attention and many things that we will
have to invest additionally compared to what we do with others, right? And well, I believe
that in that aspect, we are still not prepared within our institution.)
Also speaking about access, Barbara mentioned,
Creo que se han enfocado mucho al tema de la infraestructura, el sí ir adaptando
instalaciones que ya tenga el acceso en cuanto a acceso. Pero aquí yo me cuestionaría la
parte de la permanencia, o sea, está el acceso a la universidad, está el acceso a los edificios
¿pero cómo le hacemos para que permanezcan ellos dentro de la universidad? Y ya aquí ya
hablo más de cómo nosotros adaptamos el currículo o el plan de estudios a ellos. Creo que
ahí está el verdadero reto que tenemos ahorita en la universidad.
(I think they have focused a lot on the issue of infrastructure, on adapting facilities to
ensure accessibility. But here, I question the aspect of retention. I mean, there’s access to
the university, there’s access to the buildings, but how do we ensure that they stay within
the university? And now, I’m talking more about how we adapt the curriculum or the study
plan to them. I believe that’s the real challenge we have right now in the university.)
Faculty, in general, manifested concern for what they perceived as incongruence on the part of
their HEI, where though access is at times facilitated, SWDs are largely unattended during their
academic experience.
137

Participants from Private University 1, who all work at the school of design, mentioned
that though their university has no policies or regulations, they have attempted to create
guidelines to guide faculty in implementing some adjustments and accommodations for SWD.
This document was created collaboratively among faculty and willing SWDs and is updated
every semester. They report, however, that though helpful, this document is insufficient because
it does not have institutional support and depends largely on the willingness of current faculty.
Existence of Programs Aimed at SWD
Findings suggest most HEIs do not have specific programs to cater to the educational
needs of SWD. Actions are unconnected, uncoordinated, and left largely up to willing faculty.
Out of the six universities, only three report concrete programs for SWD.
For example, at Private University 2, Esteban spoke about a specific program developed
for students with intellectual disabilities. However, he stated that their experience is limited to
certain hours:
Aquí en la universidad por el horario en que están primordialmente las personas con
discapacidad, los estudiantes de la tarde que están digamos de las 4:00 en adelante, no los
conocen. Porque las personas con discapacidad generalmente acuden en la mañana hasta
las 3, quizás 4 de la tarde. Entonces sí hace falta como más información, más difusión a
nivel institucional para que las personas que están fuera del contacto explícito con ellos,
pues sepan que son parte de la comunidad y pueda continuarse el apoyo en diferentes
áreas.
(Here at the university, due to the primarily scheduled time for people with disabilities, the
students who attend in the afternoon from around 4:00 onwards are not familiar with them.
Because people with disabilities generally come in the morning until 3:00, maybe 4:00 in
138

the afternoon. So, there is a need for more information, more institutional awareness so that
people who are not in direct contact with them know that they are part of the community
and that support can continue in different areas.)
He additionally stated,
Más o menos desde 2010 hasta 2015, había un programa, no te voy a mentir, no recuerdo
exactamente el nombre, pero tenía que ver con justamente la integración y el apoyo a
jóvenes con alguna discapacidad de las licenciaturas promedio de la universidad.
(From around 2010 to 2015, there was a program. I won’t lie to you, I don’t exactly
remember the name, but it was related to the integration and support of young people with
disabilities in the average undergraduate programs of the university.)
Francisco, from Private University 3, said his university has inclusion as one of its relevant
strategic lines. He described what they are currently working on:
Estamos buscando que estos temas sean parte y estamos haciendo ahorita, por ejemplo un
catálogo de discapacidad en donde tengamos en todos lados qué es discapacidad y aparte
mencionar qué discapacidades hay, que entonces entendamos estos temas, que todo sea
parte de nuestra labor como maestros, estamos trabajando en eso.
(We are working toward making these topics a part of it, and right now, we are, for
example, creating a disability catalog where we have everywhere what disability is and
also mention what disabilities exist so that we understand these topics and everything
becomes part of our work as teachers. We are working on that.)
Aranza from Public University 1 described a website used to detect SWDs’ needs, but a lack of
follow-through in the implementation of supports:
139

Por ejemplo, está una plataforma que es la plataforma de inclusión y bueno que cada vez
está creciendo más y está sumando más, pero pues todavía le falta como coordinarse con
todas las áreas, con todos los profesores, con todas las coordinaciones para abordar las
situaciones y el cómo el cómo se van a manejar de la manera más adecuada. Porque pues sí
nos están llegando, sí los estamos recibiendo como te digo, y sí se están identificando y sí
se está notificando al profesor y diciéndole “pues acá lo estamos apoyando”. Pero ¿cómo?
Y ¿qué necesitamos? Y ¿cómo lo vamos a lograr? …todavía no está muy claro, ¿no?
(For example, there is a platform that is the inclusion platform, and well, it is growing and
gaining more momentum, but it still needs to better coordinate with all areas, all
professors, and all coordinators to address situations and determine how they will be
handled in the most appropriate way. Because yes, they are coming to us, we are receiving
them, as I mentioned, and they are being identified, and we are notifying the professor and
saying, “Well, here we are supporting them.” But how? And what do we need? And how
are we going to achieve it? ... It’s still not very clear, right?)
Though some participants mentioned specific actions aimed at the inclusion of SWD, most are
not backed institutionally or part of a larger university strategy that guarantees its sustainability
in time.
Discussion Research Question 3
The third research question sought to reveal the organizational factors that influence
faculty delivery of inclusive teaching methodologies for SWDs. Four themes were revealed
during the analysis of surveys, interviews, and secondary data: participants’ academic field and
nature of their university setting (public or private), available training, HEIs’ policies and
regulations, and current programs aimed explicitly at SWD.
140

Past research suggests Mexican public universities receive insufficient funding for
inclusive education, and federal resources are mainly used for infrastructure improvements with
no mention of its use for faculty training (Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, 2019).
In accordance with the literature, participants from public universities revealed that their HEIs’
budget allocations regarding SWDs go toward visible accommodations such as elevators, ramps,
and tactile floors, and some are used for hiring sign language interpreters. Faculty from private
universities did not mention resource allocation for disability accommodations. While they
described the implementation of pedagogical accommodations designed by willing faculty, they
did not mention infrastructure modification or any other visible adjustments.
Most participants mentioned class size as something that either facilitated or hindered
their ability to implement inclusive teaching strategies. In general, the experience of faculty from
private institutions was that small class sizes facilitated this experience, while class sizes of over
40 students in public HEIs hindered the implementation of accommodations and demotivated
faculty in the use of innovative practices. While participants’ professional setting was a critical
part of their experience, their implementation of inclusive teaching practices revealed important
factors as well.
The National Commission on Human Rights (Comisión Nacional de los Derechos
Humanos, 2019) found that faculty training and development to drive inclusion and equity for
SWDs was not on the higher education agenda. Research has repeatedly highlighted faculty
training as a necessary element in the path to inclusive higher education (Collins et al., 2019;
Lombardi et al., 2013; Moriña, 2017, 2022), and this study’s findings are consistent with it, as
participants reported training was inadequate, insufficient, and inefficient. The data analysis
revealed an imperative need to train faculty in pedagogical strategies in addition to disciplinary
141

approaches. Literature points to the relevance of methodologies such as differentiated instruction
and universal design for learning being part of all faculty training (Moriña, 2017).
This study’s findings, in accordance with past research, show the importance of skills
training in addition to conceptual knowledge (Alnahdi, 2020). Participants commented on their
lack of procedural knowledge in implementing inclusive teaching strategies as a key element in
their lack of self-confidence and their colleagues’ reticence in teaching SWD. Literature points to
the critical aspect of training in instructional skills and competencies to teach diverse students
(Moriña, 2017). Though training is a central component in any organization’s personnel
development strategy, the existence of institutional policies and regulations plays a key role in
driving change.
Findings revealed a dearth of policies and regulations among the universities in this
study. Literature suggests that despite political intent, there is a lack of mechanisms to translate
mandates into clear rules that guide implementation (Francis et al., 2021; López Arriaga, 2020;
Pérez-Castro, 2019). In the case of these HEIs, though international and national documents
guarantee SWDs’ right to education, only one has instituted policy specifically addressing their
needs. Additionally, previous research states that creating offices to support SWDs’ needs is not
enough to guarantee their participation and achievement (Moriña, 2022). In accordance with the
literature, this study found that participants from the only university with current policy and an
office for SWDs’ inclusion were critical to implementing their institution’s strategies and
manifested concern that their response to inclusion stops at guaranteeing access but not
participation and successful learning outcomes. Due to a lack of institutional regulations, the
other five universities have isolated and uncoordinated experiences largely left up to willing
faculty (López Arriaga, 2020).
142

Findings suggest a scarcity of institutional programs aimed at the inclusion of SWD. A
study by Cruz-Vadillo and Alvarado (2017) in Mexico determined that only 22% of the public
universities they researched had programs, activities, or policies to include SWD. The present
study revealed that three universities had formal programs to meet these students’ needs. One
university developed a policy aimed at providing access for SWDs, another had a specific
program for students with intellectual disabilities, and a third university had inclusion and
diversity as a strategic line in their organization, developing isolated actions and resources for
SWD. Participants reveal that these programs are insufficient to attend to SWDs’ needs.
Summary
This study explored faculty attitudes toward SWDs, their experiences teaching these
students, and the organizational factors influencing their delivery of inclusive teaching
methodologies. Data analysis for the study’s first research question revealed that half of the
participants’ attitudes toward disability are rooted in the medical model of disability, where they
hold an individualized perception of disability, attributing challenges to the student’s personal
limitations. The other half have attitudes attributable to the social model of disability, where their
perception of disability lies in the lack of environmental supports. Further, data revealed that
despite the mixed nature of their attitudes, they are all willing to implement inclusive teaching
methodologies and participate in training to improve their teaching skills. Additionally,
participants have varying degrees of self-efficacy in their ability to teach SWD; those with less
confidence attribute it to their lack of training and procedural knowledge. Finally, most faculty
demonstrate high levels of agency in taking the initiative to help SWDs succeed in their higher
education experience.
143

The study’s second research question regarding the participants’ experiences in teaching
SWDs and implementing inclusive education revealed important information about their
previous contact with disability, practices implementing inclusive teaching methodologies for
SWD, the perceived consequences of teaching SWD, and their perception of their colleagues’
experiences with disability. This study’s findings suggest that previous personal and professional
experience inform their teaching practice with SWDs. Additionally, their implementation of
inclusive teaching methodologies falls mainly in the category of reactive strategies, where there
is no planning for diversity independently of disability. Further, participants report many positive
consequences of teaching SWD, such as improved teaching practices, improved teaching
practice, enhanced learning environment for all students, a more inclusive culture, and increased
collaboration among colleagues. Finally, faculty perceive their colleagues have mostly negative
attitudes toward disability and teaching SWDs due, in their opinion, to a lack of knowledge and
fear of the unknown.
Lastly, findings regarding research question three reveal several organizational factors
underlying the implementation of inclusive teaching strategies. With regard to the nature of their
universities’ funding, whether public or private, participants from public institutions highlight
their universities’ allocation of resources toward visible infrastructure adjustments, whereas
private university faculty attribute the success of inclusive measures to the willingness of faculty
and leadership. Additionally, participants described class size as either a barrier or facilitator in
implementing adjustments for SWD; class size was significantly larger in public universities
versus private universities. In terms of participants’ academic fields, faculty described disciplines
such as design, where diversity and divergent thinking are welcomed, as a facilitator for
inclusive practices. Those who are in more traditionally rigid disciplines tend to have more
144

difficulty implementing inclusive strategies. Furthermore, participants described their
university’s training as inadequate and insufficient, and findings reveal a dearth of policies and
regulations to improve conditions for SWDs among the HEIs in the study. Finally, findings from
diverse data sources suggest a scarcity of programs aimed explicitly at SWDs at the six
universities, where participants manifested the need for more robust and long-term strategies to
improve educational outcomes for SWDs.
145

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to explore the personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors that influence Mexican higher education faculty members’ implementation of inclusive
teaching methodologies for SWDs. Findings suggest some participants have ableist attitudes
toward disability, while others have positive and inclusive beliefs. Despite these differences, all
are willing to implement inclusive teaching practices despite lacking the procedural knowledge
to do so. Additionally, they report their institutions lack the institutional policies, training
opportunities, and resources to adequately execute them.
Recommendations for Practice
This chapter describes three research-based recommendations to improve the delivery of
inclusive teaching methodologies in Mexican universities.
Recommendation 1: Experiential Training on Implementing Universal Design for Learning
Findings suggest that participants had a willingness and commitment to implement
inclusive teaching strategies but lacked the procedural knowledge to do so. Additionally,
participants reported that training opportunities are inadequate in their content and deficient in
developing practical skills, as they tend to remain in a theoretical realm. Furthermore,
participants described training content to be focused on individual more than inclusive strategies.
Research mentions the use of both proactive and reactive strategies to accommodate
SWDs in higher education classrooms (Edwards et al., 2022). However, this study found that
faculty are unaware of the existence or benefits of proactively planning for learner diversity.
Collins et al. (2019), for example, suggested that favoring the implementation of inclusive
education strategies, such as universal design for learning, over individual accommodations can
improve learning outcomes for all students by avoiding the need for reactive accommodations
146

(Capp, 2017) and thus reduce barriers for students who may have hidden disabilities. Because
proactive strategies involve planning for a diverse group of students from the inception of
curricular design (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017), experiential training must focus on developing
the procedural knowledge to implement the universal design for learning framework which,
according to the literature, is vital if HEIs want to move toward a more inclusive teaching
paradigm (Bunbury, 2020; Collins et al., 2019; Griful-Freixenet et al., 2017).
Effective training should be experiential and provide specific procedural skills that
transfer to participants’ professional practice, moving beyond just theoretical knowledge. While
research finds training transfer improves actual performance (Hughes et al., 2018), studies show
a significant portion of adult learning fails to effectively transfer (Roumell, 2019). Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) defined five components of learning: knowledge, skills, attitudes,
confidence, and commitment. The authors also emphasized both declarative and procedural
knowledge in the learning process. Additionally, Ananiadou and Claro (2009) described
competency as encompassing factors such as knowledge, skill, interpersonal attributes, and
ethical values. Though willingness and theoretical knowledge are important in implementing
inclusive teaching strategies, implementing Universal Design for Learning to drive inclusion for
SWDs will not be possible without skills training.
The first recommendation following this study is to provide faculty with experiential
training opportunities on implementing inclusive teaching strategies, namely Universal Design
for Learning. This training can move faculty beyond declarative or theoretical knowledge into
procedural knowledge, increasing their self-efficacy in teaching SWDs. Self-efficacy can directly
impact an individual’s motivation and define their level of effort and perseverance when facing a
task (Bandura, 1989a, 1989b; Schunk & Usher, 2019) and is the most significant contributor to
147

personal agency (Bandura, 2001). This type of training could contribute to faculty not requiring a
step-by-step guide to implementing accommodations and drive agency in their practice to
implement positive change.
Recommendation 2: Creation of Learning Communities to Drive Collaboration and
Support in the Implementation of Inclusive Teaching Strategies in a Higher Education
Setting
Findings show that participants currently benefit from collaboration with peers in their
attempt to implement accommodations for SWD. Additionally, all are willing to engage in
collaboration and continued learning to improve their inclusive teaching practices.
Past research suggests that learning communities are beneficial for inclusive practice. For
example, May and Bridger (2010) described building working groups and providing occasion for
exchange as critical elements in driving inclusive practices. Further studies suggest that a critical
element of learning transfer is socializing new knowledge to drive reflection and creativity in
problem-solving (Roumell, 2019). Moreover, Loucks-Horsley et al. (2009) described faculty
support groups as safe spaces where coworkers collaborate, debate, and talk through concerns
and experiences with the shared goal of improving their practice, and Richards and Farrell
(2005) defined professional learning communities as groups where teachers can engage in
continued learning and improvement of their teaching practice. Collectively, research suggests
that learning communities are beneficial in increasing inclusive practices.
Following the study’s findings and previous research, the second recommendation is to
create inter and intradisciplinary learning communities to drive collaboration and support in
implementing inclusive teaching strategies in a higher education setting. Faculty express the
need to feel accompanied throughout this process, and a learning community could provide the
148

space, support, and resources needed to sustain what was learned in the training sessions.
Universities can drive collaboration, inclusion, and innovation by providing faculty a safe space
with a shared goal.
Recommendation 3: Participatory Creation of Institutional Policies and Regulations
Regarding the Inclusion of SWDs in Mexican Universities
Though clear institutional guidelines are a key organizational factor in facilitating the
implementation of inclusive teaching methodologies (May & Bridger, 2010), findings show all
participants report a lack of clearly stated and adequately communicated policies and regulations
regarding the inclusion of SWDs in their universities. Research emphasizes involving university
students and faculty in creating policies regarding reasonable accommodations, awareness,
inclusive teaching methodologies, and inclusive language (Brett, 2016; Hutcheon & Wolbring,
2012).
The third recommendation is to create a plural task force involving faculty, students, and
policymakers within HEIs to draft policies and regulations regarding implementing and
delivering accommodations, adjustments, and curricular flexibility. Findings show faculty
perceive themselves to be distanced from decisions made about their professional practice and
experience, and active participation in guidelines that will directly impact them can drive
commitment in their teaching practice and implementation of inclusive teaching strategies.
Limitations and Delimitations
Leedy and Ormrod (2021) stated that a study’s limitations are possible weaknesses that
may affect the certainty of results. One of the limitations of the present study was the lack of
available data and previous research conducted in this field in Mexico. However, the relevance
of this study lies in its goal of increasing available information to inform policy changes at a
149

national level. A second limitation of the study is that purposeful sampling may have led to
response bias (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), as the voluntary nature of responses could lead to
participants with favorable attitudes or a personal interest surrounding disability. Furthermore,
the study relied on participants answering truthfully, which may not always have been the case.
A study’s delimitations include aspects that are not covered in the investigation (Leedy &
Ormrod, 2021). The present study focused on undergraduate faculty in both public and private
universities. This delimitation implied only one of the key stakeholders was studied, whereas the
input of administrators, students, and leadership would have likely informed the problem of
practice. However, it was determined that faculty are central agents in the change necessary to
implement inclusive teaching strategies.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on this study’s findings, there are two recommendations for future research. The
first is to expand the study to involve different stakeholders, such as higher education leadership
and SWD. Different viewpoints could provide a more complete view of the situation and
contribute to more robust recommendations. The second is to explore whether the present study’s
recommendations have a positive impact on participants’ ableist attitudes and are sufficient to
transform medical model beliefs into more inclusive, social model ideas.
Conclusion
This study explored the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors influencing
Mexican higher education faculty members’ implementation of inclusive teaching methodologies
for SWDs. Findings suggest that some participants have ableist attitudes toward disability, while
others have positive and inclusive beliefs. Despite these differences, all are willing to implement
inclusive teaching practices despite lacking the procedural knowledge to do so. Additionally,
150

findings point to varied experiences in teaching SWD, where most participants implement
reactive strategies versus more inclusive approaches. Finally, participants report their institutions
lack the institutional policies, training opportunities, and resources to adequately execute
inclusive teaching methodologies for SWD.
This study will contribute to increased inclusion and equity for SWDs in Mexican HEIs
by decreasing the academic barriers that affect these students. Furthermore, this research will
serve to lead the conversation in drawing more attention to these underserved students,
potentially driving policy changes that could have a positive impact at a national level. Finally,
because there is a dearth of data on the topic in Mexico, findings will be significant in advancing
achievement and participation for this population.

151

References
Abdella, A. S. (2018). Instructors’ willingness to provide instructional accommodations for
students with disabilities in selected universities of Ethiopia. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 22(6), 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1396501
Ainscow, M., & Miles, S. (2009). Desarrollando sistemas de educación inclusiva: ¿Cómo
podemos hacer progresar las políticas de educación? [Developing inclusive education
systems: How can we move policies forward]. In C. Giné (Ed.), La educación inclusiva:
De la exclusión a la plena participación de todo el alumnado (pp. 167–170). Universitat
de Barcelona, Institut de Ciències de l'Educació: Horsori.
Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp.
798–844). Clark University Press.
Alnahdi, G. (2020). Are we ready for inclusion? Teachers’ perceived self-efficacy for inclusive
education in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 67(2), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1634795
Alsarawi, A., & Sukonthaman, R. (2021). Preservice teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and self-
efficacy of inclusive teaching practices. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1922992
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium
learners in OECD countries (OECD Education Working Papers No. 41). OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019
Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior. (2021). Anuarios
estadísticos de educación superior [Statistical records of higher education].
152

http://www.anuies.mx/informacion-y-servicios/informacion-estadistica-de-educacion-
superior/anuario-estadistico-de-educacion-superior
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A
review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
Bal, A., Waitoller, F., Mawene, D., & Gorham, A. (2020). Culture, context, and disability: A
systematic literature review of cultural-historical activity theory based studies on the
teaching and learning of students with disabilities. Review of Education, Pedagogy &
Cultural Studies, 43(4), 293–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2020.1829312
Ballo, J. G. (2020). Labour market participation for young people with disabilities: The impact of
gender and higher education. Work, Employment and Society, 34(2), 336–355.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019868139
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist,
44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1989b). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development.
Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1–60). JAI Press.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
153

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2011). The social and policy impact of social cognitive theory. In M. M. Mark, S. I.
Donaldson, & B. Campbell (Eds.), Social psychology and evaluation (pp. 31–71). The
Guilford Press.
Batanero, J. M. F. (2013). Competencias docentes y educación inclusiva. Revista Electrónica de
Investigación Educativa, 15(2), Article 2. https://redie.uabc.mx/redie/article/view/445
Benkohila, A., Elhoweris, H., & Efthymiou, E. (2020). Faculty attitudes and knowledge
regarding inclusion and accommodations of special educational needs and disabilities
students: A United Arab Emirates case study. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews,
9(29), 100–111. https://journals.lapub.co.uk/index.php/perr/article/view/1458/1296
Berrigan, P., Scott, C. W. M., & Zwicker, J. D. (2020). Employment, education, and income for
Canadians with developmental disability: Analysis from the 2017 Canadian Survey on
Disability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53, 580–592.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04603-3
Biewer, G., Buchner, T., Shevlin, M., Smyth, F., Šiška, J., Káňová, S., Ferreira, M., Toboso-
Martin, M., & Rodríguez Díaz, S. (2015). Pathways to inclusion in European higher
education systems. Alter, 9(4), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2015.02.001
Björnsdóttir, K. (2017). Belonging to higher education: Inclusive education for students with
intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 125–136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254968
154

Bogart, K. R., Bonnett, A. K., Logan, S. W., & Kallem, C. (2022). Intervening on disability
attitudes through disability models and contact in psychology education. Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 8(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000194
Brett, M. (2016). Disability and Australian higher education: Policy drivers for increasing
participation. In A. Harvey, C. Burnheim, & M. Brett (Eds.), Student equity in Australian
higher education: Twenty-five years of A Fair Chance for All (pp. 87–108). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0315-8_6
Buckup, S. (2009). The price of exclusion: The economic consequences of excluding people with
disabilities from the world of work (Employment working paper No.43). International
Labour Office. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---
ifp_skills/documents/publication/wcms_119305.pdf
Bunbury, S. (2020). Disability in higher education – do reasonable adjustments contribute to an
inclusive curriculum? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(9), 964–979.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1503347
Cambridge University Press. (n.d.-a). Ableism. In Cambridge Advanced L e arne r’s Dictionary &
Thesaurus. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles/ableism
Cambridge University Press. (n.d.-b). Inequity. In Cambridge Advanced L e arne r’s Dictionary &
Thesaurus. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inequity
Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of
literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8),
791–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074
155

Carballo, R., Morgado, B., & Cortés-Vega, M. D. (2021). Transforming faculty conceptions of
disability and inclusive education through a training programme. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 25(7), 843–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1579874
Carroll, J. M., Pattison, E., Muller, C., & Sutton, A. (2020). Barriers to bachelor’s degree
completion among college students with a disability. Sociological Perspectives, 63(5),
809–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121420908896
Castellanos Daza, C., Gutiérrez Torres, A., & Castañeda Polanco, J. (2018). Actitudes hacia la
discapacidad en educación superior [Attitudes toward disability in higher education].
Inclusión y Desarrollo, 5(2), 159–174.
https://doi.org/10.26620/uniminuto.inclusion.5.2.2018.159-174
Cimera, R. E., Thoma, C. A., Whittenburg, H. N., & Ruhl, A. N. (2018). Is getting a
postsecondary education a good investment for supported employees with intellectual
disability and taxpayers? Inclusion, 6(2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-
6.2.97
Clark, S. (2022, March 2). What is critical disability studies? Best Colleges.
https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/critical-disability-
studies/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Stanford%20Encyclopedia,Rehabilitation%
20Act%20of%201973%20%E2%80%94%20one
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
Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, C. (2019). Informe especial de la comisión
nacional de los derechos humanos sobre el estado que guarda los derechos humanos de
156

las personas con discapacidad en las entidades federativas del país [Special report by the
national commission of human rights on the state of human rights of people with
disabilities in the country’s federal entities].
https://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/default/files/documentos/2019-06/Estudio-Personas-
Discapacidad.pdf
Comisión Nacional para la Mejora Continua de la Educación. (2022). Discapacidad y derecho a
la educación en México [Disability and the right to education in Mexico].
https://www.mejoredu.gob.mx/images/publicaciones/Discapacidad-de-2022.pdf
Cook, L., Rumrill, P. D., & Tankersley, M. (2009). Priorities and understanding of faculty
members regarding college students with disabilities. International Journal on Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 84–96. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ896246
Cooper, Y. (2017, June 1). Intersectionality. Career Convergence Web Magazine.
https://www.ncda.org/aws/NCDA/pt/sd/news_article/139052/_PARENT/CC_layout_deta
ils/false
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Cruz-Vadillo, R. (2016). Percepciones sobre la inclusión de alumnos con discapacidad en la
Universidad Veracruzana [Perceptions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in
Universidad Veracruzana]. Reencuentro. Análisis de problemas universitarios, 28(72),
151-178.
Cruz-Vadillo, R., & Alvarado, M. Á. C. (2017). Las instituciones de educación superior y los
estudiantes con discapacidad en México [Institutions of higher education and students
157

with disabilities in Mexico]. Revista de la Educación Superior, 46(181), 37–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resu.2016.11.002
Dewi, R., Al Izzati, R., & Suryahadi, A. (2022). Disability and labor market exclusion: Evidence
from Indonesia. Sustainability Science and Resources, 2(1), 45–77.
https://doi.org/10.55168/ssr2809-6029.2022.2004
Dhillon, L., & Vaca, S. (2018). Refining theories of change. Journal of Multidisciplinary
Evaluation, 14(30), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v14i30.496
Diario Oficial de la Federación. (1917, February 5). Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos
Mexicanos [Political constitution of the United States of Mexico].
Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2005, June 10). Ley General de Personas con Discapacidad
[General law of people with disabilities].
Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2014, March 20). Ley Federal para Prevenir y Eliminar la
Discriminación [Federal law to prevent and eliminate dicrimination].
Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2021, April 20). Ley General de Educación Superior [Federal
higher education law].
Dirth, T. P., & Branscombe, N. R. (2017). Disability models affect disability policy support
through awareness of structural discrimination. The Journal of Social Issues, 73(2), 413–
442. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12224
Edwards, M., Poed, S., Al-Nawab, H., & Penna, O. (2022). Academic accommodations for
university students living with disability and the potential of universal design to address
their needs. Higher Education, 84, 779–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00800-
w
158

Ehlinger, E., & Ropers, R. (2020). “It’s all about learning as a community”: Facilitating the
learning of students with disabilities in higher education classrooms. Journal of College
Student Development, 61(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2020.0031
Emmers, E., Baeyens, D., & Petry, K. (2020). Attitudes and self-efficacy of teachers towards
inclusion in higher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(2), 139–
153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1628337
Fernández-Gámez, M. A., Guzmán-Sánchez, P., Molina-Gómez, J., & Mercade-Mele, P. (2021).
Innovative interventions and provisions of accommodations to students with disabilities.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(5), 834–843.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1792715
Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and concerns
about inclusive education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers’
perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3), 50–65.
https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v21i3.7682
Francis, G. L., Lavin, C. E., Sanchez, J., Reed, A. S., & Mason, L. (2021). Inclusive education
definitions and practices: Exploring perspectives of education professionals in Mexico
City. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 18(1), 58–67.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12356
Freer, J. (2018). The educators’ attitudes toward disability scale (EADS): A pilot study.
International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 65(6), 581–598.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2018.1426098
Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Verstichele, M., & Andries, C. (2017). Higher education
students with disabilities speaking out: Perceived barriers and opportunities of the
159

universal design for learning framework. Disability & Society, 32(10), 1627–1649.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1365695
Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Migliore, A. (2011). Comparing the transition planning, postsecondary
education, and employment outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(1), 4–17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811399091
Gurbuz, E., Hanley, M., & Riby, D. M. (2019). University students with autism: The social and
academic experiences of university in the U.K. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 49(2), 617–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3741-4
Hall, M. (2019). Critical disability theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/disability-critical/
Hewett, R., Douglas, G., McLinden, M., & Keil, S. (2020). Balancing inclusive design,
adjustments, and personal agency: Progressive mutual accommodations and the
experiences of university students with vision impairment in the United Kingdom.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(7), 754–770.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1492637
Hosking, D. (2008, September 2-4). Critical disability theory [Paper presentation]. Disability
Studies 4th Biennial Conference, Lancaster University, U.K.
Hsiao, F., Burgstahler, S., Johnson, T., Nuss, D., & Doherty, M. (2019). Promoting an accessible
learning environment for students with disabilities via faculty development (Practice
Brief). Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(1), 91–99.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1217448.pdf
160

Hughes, A. M., Zajac, S., Spencer, J. M., & Salas, E. (2018). A checklist for facilitating training
transfer in organizations. International Journal of Training and Development, 22(4),
334–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12141
Hutcheon, E. J., & Wolbring, G. (2012). Voices of “disabled” post-secondary students:
Examining higher education “disability” policy using an ableism lens. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027002
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2017). Encuesta nacional sobre discriminación
(ENADIS) [National survey on discrimination].
https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/enadis/2017/doc/enadis2017_resultados.
pdf
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2020). Censo poblacional [Population census].
https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2020/#:~:text=El%20Censo%20de%20Poblac
i%C3%B3n%20y,viviendas%20para%20obtener%20informaci%C3%B3n%20sobre
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2021). Maestros y escuelas por entidad federativa
según nivel educativo, ciclos escolares seleccionados de 2000/2001 a 2021/2022
[Teachers and schools by federal entity according to educational level, school years
selected from 2000/2001 to 2021/2022].
https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/tabulados/interactivos/?px=Educacion_07&bd=Educacion
Kendall, L. (2016). Higher education and disability: Exploring student experiences. Cogent
Education, 3(1), Article 1256142. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1256142
Kilpatrick, S., Johns, S., Barnes, R., Fischer, S., McLennan, D., & Magnussen, K. (2017).
Exploring the retention and success of students with disability in Australian higher
161

education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(7), 747–762.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1251980
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). K irkpatri c k ’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Lamichhane, K., & Okubo, T. (2014). The nexus between disability, education, and employment:
Evidence from Nepal. Oxford Development Studies, 42(3), 439–453.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2014.927843
Langørgen, E., Kermit, P., & Magnus, E. (2020). Gatekeeping in professional higher education
in Norway: Ambivalence among academic staff and placement supervisors towards
students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(6), 616–630.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1476599
Leake, D. W., & Stodden, R. A. (2014). Higher education and disability: Past and future of
underrepresented populations. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(4),
399–408. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1059990.pdf
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2021). Practical research: Planning and design (12th ed.). Pearson.
Leyser, Y., Zeiger, T., & Romi, S. (2011). Changes in self-efficacy of prospective special and
general education teachers: Implication for inclusive education. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 58(3), 241–255.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.598397
Li, K. M., & Cheung, R. Y. M. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in implementing
inclusive education in Hong Kong: The roles of attitudes, sentiments, and concerns.
International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 68(2), 259–269.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1678743
162

Lombardi, A., Murray, C., & Dallas, B. (2013). University faculty attitudes toward disability and
inclusive instruction: Comparing two institutions. Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability, 26(3), 221–232. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1026882.pdf
Lombardi, A., Vuković, B., & 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.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1093535.pdf
Lombardi, A. R., & Murray, C. (2011). Measuring university faculty attitudes toward disability:
Willingness to accommodate and adopt Universal Design principles. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 34(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2010-0533
Lombardi, A. R., Murray, C., & Gerdes, H. (2011). College faculty and inclusive instruction:
Self-reported attitudes and actions pertaining to Universal Design. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 4(4), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024961
López Arriaga, L. (2020). An analysis of policies and practices for the inclusion of students with
disabilities in public universities in Mexico [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation].
California State University San Bernardino. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/1135
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2009). Designing
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin Press.
Love, A. M. A., Findley, J. A., Ruble, L. A., & McGrew, J. H. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy for
teaching students with autism spectrum disorder: Associations with stress, teacher
engagement, and student IEP outcomes following COMPASS consultation. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 47–54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619836767
163

Lyons, G. (2011). Quality of life for persons with intellectual disabilities: A review of the
literature. In R. Kober (Ed.), Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual
disabilities (pp. 73–126). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9650-0_6
Madriaga, M., Hanson, K., Heaton, C., Kay, H., Newitt, S., & Walker, A. (2010). Confronting
similar challenges? Disabled and non‐disabled students’ learning and assessment
experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 647–658.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903222633
Martins, M. H., Borges, M. L., & Gonçalves, T. (2018). Attitudes towards inclusion in higher
education in a Portuguese university. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(5),
527–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1377299
Matthews, N. (2009). Teaching the ‘invisible’ disabled students in the classroom: Disclosure,
inclusion, and the social model of disability. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 229–
239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898809
May, H., & Bridger, K. (2010). Developing and embedding inclusive policy and practice in
higher education. The Higher Education Academy.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mexicanos Primero. (2022, July 21). En riesgo presupuesto para atender a niñas, niños y jóvenes
con discapacidad [Budget to attend children and youth with disabilities at risk].
https://mexicanosprimerosinaloa.org/2022/07/21/en-riesgo-presupuesto-para-atender-a-
ninas-ninos-y-jovenes-con-discapacidad/
164

Moriarty, M. A. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners
in science instruction. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(3), 252–265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680701434353
Moriña, A. (2017) Inclusive education in higher education: challenges and opportunities.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 3–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964
Moriña, A. (2019). Learning from experience: Training for faculty members on disability.
Perspectives, 23(2-3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2018.1534759
Moriña, A. (2022). When what is unseen does not exist: Disclosure, barriers and supports for
students with invisible disabilities in higher education. Disability & Society, 1–19.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2113038
Moriña, A., López Gavira, M. R., & Morgado Camacho, B. (2017). How do Spanish disability
support offices contribute to inclusive education in the university? Disability & Society,
32(10), 1608–1626. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1361812
Newham, E. (2020). Students with disability: Beyond reasonable adjustments. International
Studies in Widening Participation, 7(1), 48–58.
https://novaojs.newcastle.edu.au/ceehe/index.php/iswp/article/view/146
O’Donnell, V. L., Tobbell, J., Bradshaw, C., & Richmond, E. (2012). Participation in inclusive
learning and teaching practices in higher education: A qualitative study of academic staff
identity and change. International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education, 1(2),
67–75. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijtie.2047.0533.2012.0010
165

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). Educación superior en
México: Resultados y relevancia para el mercado laboral [Higher Education in Mexico:
Results and relevance for the labor market]. https://doi.org/10.1787/a93ed2b7-es
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3) (REL 2016-160). U.S.
Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/
Pearson, S. (2009). Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers’ attitudes to and
construction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25(4), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.011
Pelleboer-Gunnink, H., van Weeghel, J., & Embregts, P. (2021). Public stigmatisation of people
with intellectual disabilities: A mixed-method population survey into stereotypes and
their relationship with familiarity and discrimination. Disability and Rehabilitation,
43(4), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1630678
Pérez-Castro, J. (2019). La inclusión de los estudiantes con discapacidad en dos universidades
públicas mexicanas [The inclusion of students with disabilities in two public Mexican
universities]. Innovación Educativa, 19(79), 145–170.
Pickens, J. (2005). Attitudes and perceptions. In N. Borkowski & K. A. Meese (Eds.),
Organizational behavior in health care (pp. 43–75). Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Polo Sánchez, T., Fernández-Jiménez, C., & Fernández Cabezas, M. (2018). The attitudes of
different partners involved in higher education towards students with disabilities.
International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 65(4), 442–458.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1406066
166

Polo Sánchez, T., & López, M. D. (2006). Actitudes hacia las personas con discapacidad de
estudiantes de la Universidad de Granada [Attitudes toward people with disability among
students of the University of Granada]. Revista Española de Orientación y
Psicopedagogía, 17(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.5944/reop.vol.17.num.2.2006.11346
Procknow, G., Rocco, T. S., & Munn, S. L. (2017). (Dis)Ableing notions of authentic leadership
through the lens of critical disability theory. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
19(4), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422317728732
Richards, J., & Farrell, T. (2005). Professional Development for Language Teachers. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667237
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rodríguez-Martín, A., & Álvarez-Arregui, E. (2015). Universidad y discapacidad: Actitudes del
profesorado y de estudiantes [University and disability: Attitudes of faculty and students].
Perfiles Educativos, 37(147), 86–102.
https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2015.147.47265
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & 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.
Roumell, E. A. (2019). Priming adult learners for learning transfer: Beyond content and delivery.
Adult Learning, 30(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159518791281
Sarrett, J. C. (2018). Autism and accommodations in higher education: Insights from the autism
community. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(3), 679–693.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3353-4
167

Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social Cognitive Theory and Motivation. In R. M. Ryan
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 9–26). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (2006). Models of disability: Implications for the counselling
profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 84(1), 29–40.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00377.x
Sniatecki, J. L., Perry, H. B., & Snell, L. (2015). Faculty attitudes and knowledge regarding
college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
28(3), 259–275. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083837.pdf
Story, M. F. (2001). The principles of universal design. In W. Preiser & K. Smith (Eds.),
Universal design handbook (pp. 4.3–4.9). McGraw-Hill.
Subban, P., Round, P., & Sharma, U. (2021). ‘I can because I think I can’: An investigation into
Victorian secondary school teacher’s self-efficacy beliefs regarding the inclusion of
students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(3), 348–361.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1550816
Tihić, M. (2019). Experiences of entrepreneurs with disabilities: A critical disability theory
perspective (Publication No. 13808342) [Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Tinklin, T., Riddell, S., & Wilson, A. (2004). Policy and provision for disabled students in higher
education in Scotland and England: The current state of play. Studies in Higher
Education, 29(5), 637–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000261599
Torres, A. A., González, M. L. G., López, F. P., & Arroyo, J. C. (2019). Actitudes hacia la
discapacidad en una universidad mexicana [Attitudes toward disability in a Mexican
168

university]. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 24, e240023. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-
24782019240023
Toutain, C. (2019). Barriers to accommodations for students with disabilities in higher
education: A literature review. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 32(3),
297–310.
United Nations General Assembly. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007,
A/RES/61/106. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/Ch_IV_15.pdf
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. (2008). Declaración sobre los derechos de las
personas con discapacidad en las universidades.
www.ddu.unam.mx/publicaciones/Declaraci%C3%B3nYucatan_2008.pdf
Volpe, S., Weiss, M. J., & Boone, V. (2022). Issues in individuals with ASD in higher education
environments. In J. B. Leaf, J. H. Cihon, J. L. Ferguson, & P. F. Gerhardt (Eds.),
Handbook of quality of life for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (pp. 137–156).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98507-3_9
Wang, H. Y. (2020). Attitudes towards inclusive education among instructors at universities in
Taiwan. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 70(1), 90–105.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1849575
Ware, H., & Schuelka, M. J. (2019). Constructing ‘disability’ in Myanmar: Teachers, community
stakeholders, and the complexity of disability models. Disability & Society, 34(6), 863–
884. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1580186
Wolman, C., McCrink, C. S., Rodríguez, S. F., & Harris-Looby, J. (2004). The Accommodation
of University Students with Disabilities Inventory (AUSDI): Assessing American and
169

Mexican Faculty Attitudes toward Students with Disabilities. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 3(3), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192704265985
Zhang, Y., Rosen, S., Cheng, L., & Li, J. (2018). Inclusive higher education for students with
disabilities in China: What do the university teachers think? Higher Education Studies,
8(4), 104. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v8n4p104

170

Appendix A: Survey Protocol in English
Thank you for participating in this study, which seeks to explore the factors that influence
faculty’s delivery of inclusive teaching methodologies for students with disabilities. Because the
study is based on personal experience and perceptions, the questions do not have correct or
incorrect answers, so please answer in a way that best reflects your opinion. If you teach at more
than one university, please consider the institution where you teach the majority of the time. The
results are confidential, and no identifying information will be used in the dissemination of the
findings, and you are free to leave the study at any time.
For the purposes of this study, people with disabilities are defined as “those who have
long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various
barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”

Table A1
English Survey Protocol
Question
Response options
(if close-ended)
RQ
Concept being
measured
What is the name of the university where
you teach?
– Inclusion criteria
What level do you teach? Undergraduate
Postgraduate
Both
Inclusion criteria
What type of classes do you teach? (You
can select more than one option)
Online
In-person
Hybrid
Inclusion criteria
Would you be willing to participate in a
follow-up interview (45–60 minutes) to
explore this issue more in-depth? If so,
please provide your name, email, and
phone number so I can reach you.
– Inclusion criteria
How long have you been teaching at your
university?
0–4 years
5–9 years
10–14 years
2 Previous experience
171

15–19 years
20 years or more
Have you taught students with disabilities
in a higher education setting before?
Yes
No
I’m not sure
2 Previous experience
Tell me about your university’s
preparedness in attending to the needs
of students with disabilities.
– 3
Organizational
factors
Have you received training in the last 5
years regarding teaching students with
disabilities? If so, can you describe it?
– 3
Organizational
factors
What is your opinion about students with
disabilities being included in higher
education classes?
– 1 Attitude
What are the possible effects that you
believe can come from the presence of
SWDs in university classrooms?
– 1 Attitude
What are the possible barriers or
difficulties that, in your opinion, can
impede the presence of SWDs in
university classrooms?
– 1 Attitude
To what extent do you agree or disagree
with the following statement: I believe
providing accommodations for students
with disabilities is important.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1 Attitude
How likely would you be to making
adjustments to class objectives for
students with disabilities.
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
1 Attitude
How likely would you be to making
adjustments to class content for
students with disabilities.
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
1 Attitude
How likely would you be to making
adjustments to class methodologies for
students with disabilities.
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
1 Attitude
How likely would you be to making
adjustments to evaluation instruments
(for example, tests or presentations) for
students with disabilities.
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
1 Attitude
172

How likely would you be to attend
training related to the needs of students
with disabilities?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
1 Attitude
What is your level of confidence in
teaching students with disabilities?
– 1 Attitude
What, if anything, would you need to
increase your confidence level?
– 3
Organizational
factors

173

Appendix B: Survey Protocol in Spanish
Gracias por participar en esta investigación la cual busca explorar los factores que
influyen en la implementación de metodologías incluyentes para alumnos con discapacidad.
Dado que la investigación está basada en experiencias y percepciones personales, las preguntas
no tienen respuestas correctas o incorrectas, así que por favor elige la opción que mejor refleje tu
punto de vista. En el caso de que impartas clases en más de una universidad, por favor toma en
cuenta aquella institución donde enseñes la mayor parte del tiempo. Los resultados son
confidenciales, no se publicará información que pueda utilizarse para identificarte y eres libre de
abandonar la investigación en cualquier momento.
Para los fines de esta investigación, las personas con discapacidad se definen como
aquellas que: “tengan deficiencias físicas, mentales, intelectuales o sensoriales a largo plazo que,
al interactuar con diversas barreras, puedan impedir su participación plena y efectiva en la
sociedad, en igualdad de condiciones con las demás.”

Table B1
Spanish Survey Protocol
Pregunta Opciones de respuesta
¿Cómo se llama la universidad donde das clase? N/A
¿En qué nivel das clase? Licenciatura
Posgrado
Ambas
¿En qué modalidad enseñas? (Puedes elegir más de una opción) En línea
Presencial
Híbrido
¿Hace cuánto tiempo das clase en tu universidad? 0–4 años
5–9 años
10–14 años
15–19 años
20 años o más
174

¿Alguna vez has tenido algún alumno con discapacidad en tu
clase universitaria?
Sí
No
No estoy seguro/a
¿Estarías dispuesto a participar en una entrevista (45-60 minutos)
para explorar este tema a profundidad? En caso afirmativo,
escribe tu nombre, correo electrónico y teléfono para poderte
contactar.
N/A
Cuéntame sobre la preparación que tiene tu universidad para
atender las necesidades de los alumnos con discapacidad.
N/A
¿Has recibido capacitación en los últimos 5 años sobre cómo
impartir clases a alumnos con discapacidad? En caso
afirmativo, favor de describir en qué consistió.
N/A
¿Cuál es tu opinión acerca de la inclusión de estudiantes con
discapacidad en las aulas universitarias?
N/A
En tu opinión, ¿qué posibles consecuencias puede traer la
presencia de estudiantes con discapacidad en las aulas
universitarias?
N/A
¿Cuáles son las principales dificultades o barreras que, en tu
opinión, pueden impedir la participación de estudiantes con
discapacidad en las aulas universitarias?
N/A
Hasta qué punto estás de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con el
siguiente enunciado: Creo que el proveer ajustes para los
estudiantes con discapacidad es importante.
Muy de acuerdo
De acuerdo
En desacuerdo
Muy en desacuerdo
¿Qué tan probable es que realices ajustes a los objetivos de clase
para los alumnos con discapacidad?
Muy probable
Algo probable
Poco probable
Muy poco probable
¿Qué tan probable es que realices ajustes a los contenidos de
clase para los alumnos con discapacidad?
Muy probable
Algo probable
Poco probable
Muy poco probable
¿Qué tan probable es que realices ajustes a la metodología de
clase para los alumnos con discapacidad?
Muy probable
Algo probable
Poco probable
Muy poco probable
¿Qué tan probable es que realices ajustes a las evaluaciones de
clase (por ejemplo, exámenes o presentaciones) para los
alumnos con discapacidad?
Muy probable
Algo probable
Poco probable
Muy poco probable
¿Qué tan probable es que asistas a capacitaciones relacionadas
con la enseñanza de alumnos con discapacidad?
Muy probable
Algo probable
Poco probable
Muy poco probable
¿Qué tanta confianza tienes sobre tu capacidad para enseñar a
alumnos con discapacidad en el aula universitaria?
–
175

¿Qué elementos incrementarían tu nivel de confianza? –

176

Appendix C: Interview Protocol in English
The following sections present the procedure and questions for interviews conducted in
English.
Introduction to the Interview
Thank you for agreeing to be a part of my study. I really appreciate your time. Before we
begin, I would like to talk to you about my research and answer any questions you could have.
My name is Francesca Munda, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California, and this interview is part of my dissertation research. My study will attempt to
explore the factors that influence faculty’s delivery of inclusive teaching methodologies for
students with disabilities. I will be speaking with teachers from different universities about this. I
am interested in learning about your personal experience and perceptions, so there are no right or
wrong answers.
As you know, I will record this interview and have received your signed consent form. It
is important to mention this interview is confidential, and I will be the only person who will view
the recording which will be stored in a secure drive to which only I will have access. Once my
dissertation is published, I will destroy the recordings. Your name will not be mentioned in my
study, and no identifying information will be used. Do you agree that I record this interview?
This interview should last around 45 minutes, is that all right?
I will be happy to share the findings of my research once it is concluded. Do you have
any questions?

177

Table C1
English Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes
RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
Tell me about your
experience teaching at
your university.
What classes do you teach?
What is a typical class size?
How would you describe your
experience teaching there?
2 Experience
When you think about a
person with a
disability, tell me what
comes to mind.
What makes you think that?
1 Attitudes
When you think about
inclusive education,
tell me what comes to
mind.
What makes you think that?
1 Attitudes
How do you feel about
people with
disabilities studying in
universities?
Does this feeling vary depending
on type of disability?
Do you believe universities are
the most appropriate place for
the academic and professional
training of students with
disabilities? Why or why not?
1 Attitudes
Have you had
experience teaching
students with
disabilities in your
university or another
university?
How often would you say you
had a SWD in your class?
What types of disabilities did
they have?
What is your level of confidence
in teaching these students?
2 Experience
How would you describe
your experience in
teaching these
students?
What makes you say that?
2 Experience
Tell me about a specific
experience you had
teaching a SWD.
How did it make you feel?
What strategies did you use?
Which worked? Which didn’t
work?
Can you tell me of a specific time
when you had a
positive/negative interaction
with a student with a disability?
2 Experience
How could a university
teacher drive SWD’s
participation and
Have you attempted to do so?
How?
What has been your experience?
2 Experience
178

learning in their
classroom?
What are the positive/negative
aspects associated with the
implementation of such
measures?
According to your
perception, how do
other faculty feel
about having SWDs in
their classroom?
What is your feeling about this?
1 Attitudes
To your knowledge,
does your university
provide courses or
workshops regarding
inclusive teaching
methodologies?
If so, can you describe what they
entail?
3
Organizational
factors
Tell me about any
institutional policies
you are aware of in
your university
regarding access and
participation of SWD.
Can you give me an example of
how this is made evident in
your day to day?
2/3
Experience
Organizational
factors
Tell me about the
support or resources
your university
provides regarding
teaching SWD.
Give me an example of this.
How would you characterize
these resources? 3
Organizational
context
If you were to design
resources for faculty,
what would be the
three things that you
would prioritize?
Why would you include these
things?
3
Organizational
context

Conclusion to the Interview
Is there anything you would like to add? Is there anything you would like to mention that
I did not address?
Thank you so much for your time, I have learned so much about your experience. Is it ok
to contact you in case I have some follow-up questions?
179

Thank you once again and, as I mentioned, I would be happy to share my findings once
my study has concluded.

180

Appendix D: Interview Protocol in Spanish
Las siguientes secciones presentan el procedimiento y las preguntas para las entrevistas
realizadas en español.
Introducción a la Entrevista
Muchas gracias por tu participación en mi investigación, agradezco mucho tu tiempo.
Antes de empezar quiero comentarte sobre mi estudio, y poder responder cualquier pregunta que
puedas tener. Mi nombre es Francesca Munda y soy alumna de doctorado en la Universidad de
Southern California. Estoy realizando mi tesis sobre los factores que influyen en la
implementación de metodologías incluyentes para alumnos con discapacidad en sus clases. Voy
a hablar sobre este tema con profesores de varias universidades. Es importante mencionar que no
hay respuestas correctas o incorrectas, lo que me interesa es conocer la percepción y experiencia
personal de los profesores.
Como sabes, esta entrevista será grabada, ¿estás de acuerdo? La entrevista es confidencial
y seré la única persona que verá la grabación, la cual será guardada en un drive seguro al cual
sólo yo tendré acceso. Una vez que presente mi tesis, borraré todas las grabaciones. No usaré tu
nombre en el estudio ni tampoco ninguna información que pueda revelar tu identidad. ¿Tengo tu
permiso para grabar nuestra conversación? La entrevista dura alrededor de 45 minutos, ¿está
bien?
Me dará mucho gusto compartir los resultados de mi estudio una vez concluido. ¿Tienes
alguna duda sobre la investigación antes de iniciar?

181

Table D1
Spanish Interview Protocol
Pregunta Pregunta exploratoria
Cuéntame sobre tu experiencia
enseñando en tu universidad.
¿Qué materias impartes?
¿Qué tamaño suelen tener las clases?
¿Cómo describirías tu experiencia enseñando ahí?
¿Cuando piensas en una persona
con discapacidad, dime qué te
viene a la cabeza
¿Qué te hace pensar eso?
¿Cuando piensas en educación
inclusiva, dime qué te viene a la
cabeza
¿Qué te hace pensar eso?
¿Cómo te hace sentir el pensar en
que personas con discapacidad
estudien en la universidad?
¿Este sentimiento cambia dependiendo del tipo de
discapacidad?
¿Crees que las universidades son el lugar más apropiado
para el desarrollo personal y profesional de las personas
con discapacidad? ¿Por qué?
¿Has tenido alguna experiencia
enseñando a alumnos con
discapacidad en tu universidad
o en alguna otra universidad?
¿Qué tan frecuentemente has tenido alumnos con
discapacidad?
¿Qué tipo de discapacidades tenían?
¿Qué tanta confianza sientes al enseñar a estos
estudiantes?
¿Cómo describirías tu experiencia
dando clase a estos alumnos?
¿Qué te hace decir eso?
Cuéntame sobre una experiencia
en específico que hayas tenido
dando clase a un alumno con
discapacidad.
¿Cómo te sentiste?
¿Qué estrategias usaste?
¿Cuáles funcionaron? ¿Cuáles no funcionaron?
¿Me puedes contar sobre un ejemplo específico en donde
hayas tenido una interacción positiva o negativa con un
alumno con discapacidad?
¿Cómo podría un profesor
universitario impulsar la
participación y aprendizaje de
los alumnos con discapacidad
en su clase?
¿Tú los has intentado hacer? ¿Cómo?
¿Cuál ha sido tu experiencia haciéndolo?
¿Cuáles son los aspectos positivos/negativos asociados a
la implementación de este tipo de medidas o
estrategias?
182

De acuerdo a tu percepción,
¿cómo se sienten los demás
profesores sobre tener alumnos
con discapacidad en sus clases?
¿Y tú cómo te sientes al respecto?
Hasta donde sabes, ¿en tu
Universidad existen cursos o
talleres sobre metodologías para
la inclusión educativa?
En caso de que existan, ¿los puedes describir?
Cuéntame sobre las políticas
institucionales que conozcas
que tengan que ver con el
acceso y participación de
alumnos con discapacidad.
¿Me puedes dar un ejemplo de cómo se hacen evidentes
estas políticas en tu día a día?
Cuéntame sobre el apoyo o los
recursos que ofrece tu
universidad para la enseñanza
de alumnos con discapacidad.
Dame un ejemplo de esto.
¿Cómo caracterizarías estos recursos?
Si fueras a diseñar recursos para
profesores universitarios,
¿cuáles son las tres cosas que
priorizarías?
¿Por qué incluirías estas cosas?

Conclusión a la Entrevista
¿Hay algo más que quieres agregar? ¿Hay algo que quieras mencionar que yo no
pregunté?
Muchas gracias por tu tiempo, aprendí mucho sobre tu experiencia. ¿Está bien si te
contacto en caso de que tenga preguntas adicionales?
Gracias de nuevo y, como mencioné, me dará gusto compartir mis resultados una vez
haya concluido el estudio.

183

Appendix E: Data Collection Sheet
Appendix E: Data Collection Sheet
Artifact type Date collected Organizational culture symbology noted
Specific
inclusiveness
noted/any
additional
notations
Website for
Public
University 1
May 24, 2023
Three clicks leads to page describing
the Unit of Inclusion of the School of
Administrative Sciences, which
provides a link to register for access
to laboratories, add/drop classes, and
scholarships.

Website for
Public
University 2
May 24, 2023
Website has an accessibility badge, but
there is no information on disability.

Website for
Public
University 3
May 24, 2023
Website has no information on
disability.

Website for
Private
University 1
May 24, 2023
Website has no information on
disability.

Website for
Private
University 2
May 24, 2023
Website has an accessibility badge, two
clicks leads to a page with outdated
contact information for the
intellectual disability program.

Website for
Private
University 3
May 24, 2023
Two clicks leads to page of the “Office
of Diversity and Inclusion” which
provides resources and annual
reports.

Policies and
Regulations
for Public
University 1
May 24, 2023
Institutional policies mention all
students have the right to non-
discrimination, including those with
disabilities.
Existence of an Institutional Policy for
Inclusion.
Policy required
web search
Policies and
Regulations
for Public
University 2
May 24, 2023
Institutional policy states the
responsibility of academic
coordinator to identify SWDs to
provide available support.
Policy required
web search
Policies and
Regulations
for Public
University 3
May 24, 2023
Institutional policies mention all
students have the right to non-
discrimination, including those with
disabilities.
Policy required
web search
Policies and
Regulations
May 24, 2023
Institutional policies mention all
students have the right to personal
Policy required
web search
184

Artifact type Date collected Organizational culture symbology noted
Specific
inclusiveness
noted/any
additional
notations
for Private
University 1
dignity, including those with
disabilities.
Policies and
Regulations
for Private
University 2
May 24, 2023
Institutional policies mention all
students have the right to non-
discrimination, including those with
disabilities.
Policy required
web search
Policies and
Regulations
for Private
University 3
May 24, 2023
Institutional policies mention all
students have the same rights,
including those with disabilities.
Policy required
web search
Appendix E: Data Collection Sheet

185

Appendix F: Information Sheet in English
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Factors and Forces of Impact: Teaching Students with Disabilities in Mexican
Universities
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Francesca Munda
FACULTY ADVISOR: Rudolph Franklin Crew, PhD
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to explore the factors that influence faculty’s delivery of inclusive
teaching methodologies for students with disabilities. We hope to advance inclusion and equity
for these students. You are invited as a possible participant because you are a full-time or part-
time faculty in one of the Mexican higher education institutions being studied.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
I would like to ask you to participate in an online survey consisting of 19 questions, which will
take approximately 15–20 minutes to respond. The questions will explore your perception and
professional experience surrounding disability and inclusive education.
The survey will give you the option to participate in a follow-up, remote interview. If you agree
to it, you will be contacted and asked questions regarding your experience while teaching at your
university, specifically surrounding your beliefs regarding disability and the facilitators and
barriers that, in your opinion, are involved in teaching students with disabilities. The interview
186

will require between 45 and 60 minutes and will be recorded using Zoom, then transcribed and
translated for the purpose of its analysis.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
Survey and interview data are confidential. I will be the only person who will view the interview
recordings, which will be stored in a secure drive to which only I will have access. Audio
transcriptions will be sent to a certified translator with identifiable information removed or coded
with a random number. Once my dissertation is published (approximately July 14, 2022), I will
destroy the recordings. Your name will not be mentioned in my study, and no identifying
information will be used. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the study
at any time.
The results of this study will be published in USC’s dissertation publishing system as a result of
the completion of my degree, and may also be used for conferences, presentations, and
publication in academic journals. If you are interested, I will share the results with you once the
research is concluded.

187

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Francesca Munda at munda@usc.edu
or Rudolph Crew at crew@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

188

Appendix G: Information Sheet in Spanish
HOJA DE INFORMACIÓN PARA INVESTIGACIONES EXENTAS
TÍTULO DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN: Factores y fuerzas de impacto: Enseñar a estudiantes con
discapacidad en universidades mexicanas
INVESTIGADOR PRINCIPAL: Francesca Munda
ASESOR ACADÉMICO: Rudolph Franklin Crew, PhD
Estás invitado a participar en una investigación. Tu participación es voluntaria. Este documento
explica la información relacionada con esta investigación. Haz cualquier pregunta que necesites
para aclarar las dudas que tengas.
PROPÓSITO
El propósito de esta investigación es explorar los factores que influyen en la implementación de
metodologías incluyentes para alumnos con discapacidad. Esperamos que este estudio mejore la
inclusión y equidad para estos alumnos. Estás invitado a participar por ser profesor de tiempo
completo o parcial en una de las universidades mexicanas que participarán en esta investigación.
INTERVENCIÓN DE LOS PARTICIPANTES
Me gustaría invitarte a participar en una encuesta en línea, que consiste en 19 preguntas y te
tomará aproximadamente 15-20 minutos responder. Las preguntas explorarán tu percepción y
experiencia profesional con respecto a la discapacidad y la inclusión educativa.
La encuesta te dará la opción de participar en una entrevista remota. Si accedes a ella, se te
contactará y se te harán preguntas sobre tu experiencia impartiendo clases en tu universidad,
específicamente sobre tus creencias entorno a la discapacidad y las barreras y facilitadores que,
en tu opinión, existen al enseñar a alumnos con discapacidad. Esta entrevista durará entre 45 y 60
189

minutos y, con tu permiso, será grabada usando Zoom y luego transcrita y traducida al inglés
para su análisis.
PAGO/COMPENSACIÓN POR PARTICIPAR
No habrá pago por tu participación.
CONFIDENCIALIDAD
Los miembros del equipo de Investigación y del Comité de Revisión Institucional de la
Universidad del Sur de California (University of Southern California) podrán acceder a la
información. El Comité de Revisión Institucional revisa y monitorea los derechos y bienestar de
los sujetos de investigación.
Cuando los resultados sean publicados y comentados en congresos, no se usará información que
pueda usarse para identificarte.
La información de las encuestas y las entrevistas es confidencial. Yo soy la única persona que
verá las grabaciones de las entrevistas, las cuales serán guardadas en un drive seguro al que sólo
yo tendré acceso. Las transcripciones de audio serán enviadas a un traductor certificado, y
cualquier información que pueda usarse para identificarte será eliminada o codificada con u
número aleatorio. Una vez que mi tesis sea publicada (aproximadamente el 14 de julio de 2022),
destruiré las grabaciones. Tu nombre no será utilizado en mi investigación, y no usaré ninguna
información que te pueda identificar. Tu participación es voluntaria y puedes abandonar la
investigación en cualquier momento.
Los resultados de este estudio serán publicados en el sistema de la Universidad del Sur de
California para publicación de tesis, como parte de la obtención de mi grado. También podría ser
usado en conferencias, presentaciones y publicaciones académicas. Si te interesa, puedo
compartirte mis resultados una vez concluida la investigación.
190

INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO DE LOS INVESTIGADORES
Si tienes cualquier pregunta acerca de esta investigación, puedes contactar directamente a
Francesca Munda en munda@usc.edu o Rudolph Crew en crew@usc.edu
INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO DEL COMITÉ DE REVISIÓN INSTITUCIONAL
Si tienes cualquier duda sobre tus derechos como participante en la investigación, favor de
contactar al Comité de Revisión Institucional de la University of Southern California al teléfono
(323) 442-0114 o correo electrónico irb@usc.edu.

191

Appendix H: Codebook
Appendix H: Codebook
Factor Code group Code Description of Code References
Personal
factors
Knowledge
Has knowledge on
disability
3
Has knowledge on IE 6
Has misinformation on
disability
1
Has misinformation on
IE
5
Attitudes
Shows positive
attitudes towards
disability
Manifests examples
of attitudes toward
disability that
portray the social
model
20
Shows negative
attitudes towards
disability
Manifests examples
of attitudes toward
disability that
portray the medical
or ableist model
3
Shows positive
attitudes towards IE
Manifests examples
of attitudes toward
IE that portray the
social model
28
Shows negative
attitudes towards IE
Manifests examples
of attitudes toward
IE that portray the
medical or ableist
model
6
Defines disability
according to social
model
9
Defines disability
according to medical
model
20
Self-efficacy
Perceived high self-
efficacy in teaching
SWD
13
Perceived low self-
efficacy in teaching
SWD
4
Agency
Teacher: Evidence of
agency
Participant
intentionally plans
and executes
actions that will
93
192

Factor Code group Code Description of Code References
drive inclusion for
SWD
Behavioral
factors
Evidence of
inclusive
teaching
practices
Implements proactive
strategies
Participant plans for
diversity in their
lessons
30
Implements reactive
strategies
Participant
implements
accommodations
centered around a
specific SWD
27
Environmental
factors
Culture
Culture of inclusion in
their HEI
19
Culture of exclusion in
their HEI
32
Comments on other
faculty’s perception
24
Policies &
Regulations
Manifests awareness of
lack of policies or
regulations
10
Manifests awareness of
lack or insufficiency
of programs
19
Manifests awareness of
the existence of
policies or
regulations
12
Manifests awareness of
the existence of
programs
5
Manifests no
knowledge of the
existence of policies
or regulations
3
Manifests no
knowledge of the
existence of
programs
3
Available
training
Manifests insufficient
training

41
Manifests sufficient
training
10
Available
resources
Student: evidence of
agency
The SWD proactively
self-discloses their
disability and asks
for resources
9
193

Factor Code group Code Description of Code References
Supports provided by
SWD
Personal devices or
supports provided
by the SWD, such
as wheelchairs,
computer software,
etc.
9
Supports provided by
the university
Accommodations
provided by the
university, such as
sign language
interpreters or
accessible
infrastructure
15
Barriers Contextual barriers
Obstacles that hinder
inclusion, such as
inaccessibility
19

Impact
Effect of IE on the
class
Perception of the
impact having a
SWD has on the
class climate and
learning
18
Effect of IE on their
teaching practice
Changes in their
teaching
methodologies or
resources as a
result of having a
SWD in their class
11
Recommendations 29

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

PDF

Increasing representation of Black male hip-hop educators in the community colleges in California

PDF

Opening interpretations: visual literacy and teaching for inclusion, first-year studio faculty innovate for improvement

PDF

Evaluating technical support provided in online education for students with disabilities

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Educators, experiences, and environment: exploring Doctor of Physical Therapy student perceived influences on professional identity formation

PDF

Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida

PDF

Enduring in silence: understanding the intersecting challenges of women living with multiple sclerosis in the workplace

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Retaining racially minoritized students in community college STEM programs

PDF

Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities

PDF

Teachers' voices: SEL perceptions in a grade 9-12 school

PDF

Belonging matters: exploring the impact of social connectedness on the academic success of immigrant and refugee children in the American school system

PDF

Toward equity and inclusion for developmentally disabled persons: a study of electoral engagement

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Leading from the margins: an intersectional qualitative analysis of the leadership experiences of Black mothers

Asset Metadata

Creator Munda, Francesca (author)

Core Title Factors and forces of impact: teaching students with disabilities in Mexican universities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 09/01/2023

Defense Date 08/25/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Disability,Higher education,inclusive education,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crew, Rudolph (committee chair), Malloy, Courtney (committee member), Martinez, Brandon (committee member)

Creator Email fran.munda@gmail.com,munda@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113302897

Unique identifier UC113302897

Identifier etd-MundaFranc-12301.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-MundaFranc-12301

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Munda, Francesca

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230901-usctheses-batch-1089 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu